Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Basic Techniques in Legal Reasoning

    Uploaded by

    Gaile Ulayan
    38 views45 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    38 views45 pages

    Basic Techniques in Legal Reasoning

    Uploaded by

    Gaile Ulayan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 45
    i“ =| il | BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING eS NRTA ® REX Book Store BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING JOHN DAVE VERGARA @PREX Book Store ‘wie reese he “eae reapeee sand his pessin for rational argument, definitely deopened his legal and logical mind. This s demonstratod inthis book that you now hold It isa great honor for me to give the foreword, for his first publication (may you suffer from a “diarrhea of the ink’ and publish more). Read it, Study it, Laarn from it. Practice it" And indced, that “certain kind of mind — the legal mind. « mind that ia formed by legal reasoning and ‘argumentation... trengthened by) some basic rules of logic" (via requirement for becoming a genuine lawyer by ‘heart (not just by profeesion)—will grow in you as naturally ‘a6 a seed grows, drawing nutrients from eol, sun, and water. gar Rene M. Nertoter "Pa Stadent ‘Aveo de Manila University Adjunct culty, Philosophy Department "Ateneo de Devas University Sarah, Gio, and Téa PREFACE Beery schoot year, thousands of students flock the portals of law schools to gota shot athe legal profession. Badly, of those who gota law degree, only a few pass the bar ‘exam conducted yearly by the Supreme Court. 1 has been wildy claimed that nex 1 Japan, the Philippines enjoys the Zotoriety of having the 2nd most difficult bar exama in the ‘world. Whether thisis true or not, we have no way of knowing Jt Personally though, it ie no exaggeration to say that out ‘ar exams fel ike the “Excalibur” Only the "worthy few” are blot draw such a word every year. So the eruial question a, how does one become a lawyer? How does one draw the Excalibur? The technical answer ofcourse is found in Sections 1, 2 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Thi rule tlla un who may practice law in the Philippines, the requirement of « fouryear study of Taw, and the requirements belore taking the Philippine bar evamination. But this isnot what we are really asking about. Apart from the lege requirement bofire taking the bar exams, how doce one really become a lawyer? We know that there are many who earaed law degrees but fll shor-of passing the ber ‘rams, Satisfying the legal requirement seems not enough ‘Are there any other things needed to become a lawyer? ‘This humble book tries to answer this question. There {san important personal ail to become a lawyer. This book proposes that becoming a lemyer requires a certain kind of ‘mind-thelegal mind. The legal mindisnot a itigous mind but ‘¢ mind that i formed by legal eagoning and argumentation. Some basic rues of loi pay vital role in this aren. This book teaches law wtudent, or any person interested in the subject, on how to use logical reasoning in working out Iogal ‘concepts with an im to obtain a legal mind, 2 mind that is necessary in passing the bar exams In other words, this book provides methodology in the legal profession. All kinds of academic pursuits have their ‘own methodologies. In legal profeaion, lgal reasoning is the basic methodology. When T entered law schoo, there was no ‘subject about logal reasoning. Statutory Construction isthe Subject neareat to this, but it atretly deals with interpreting ft law and does not directly teach how to Uhink logically to Interpret the laws correctly. Students are somehow expected to learn lgal reasoning as by-product of working out legal concepts. However, this book sets out only the moet basic rules of legal reasoning. Tie it not designed a8 a workbook with lots cof exerelaes. The contents simply provide a skeletal frame- ‘work of logs reasoning which are needed in analyzing alae, ‘our eases, law school and the bar examination questions. ‘The student or the reader is encouraged to lake further steps in applying what ie being discussed in the book to develop confidence in legal reneoning. The contents are primarily ‘erefical to law students particularly during thelr Rrst year. ‘Almost all of them enter law school with no knowledge of ‘what is involved in the whole enterprise, In this light, this ‘ook also serves as a “manta” for fist year lav students to provide them with some kind of an entry level skills to deal ‘with various legal coneopts they will encounter inlaw school ‘The examples used in the book are taken from certain ‘the Revised Penal Code, and in Chaptore Vand VI are taken from this website: hps://upangphinmala files wordpress. com. — Accessed date: April 19, 2017. Suggested canes readings fare alo provided as rferencos for further application of the ues discussed in this book. techniques discussed in this aay Geib 2, 2018 Davao City. Philippines wi Bllective Reading Skills CONTENTS Tntrodetion nn ‘Historical Background of Logie Daductive and Inductive Reasoning. Legal Reasoning. Basic Pattorns of Reasoning. Teentifying Arguments. Argument Indicators. [Nature of Arguments Devoctive and Inductive Pattern n Court Canes ccc Other Pattorns of Lagal Reasoning... Ronsoning from Definition and Then Reasoning “Argument from General Principles of Law ‘Cadale and Jrisprdence Read the Materials Repostedly {ak for Important Werds, Pras ‘and Sentences. Rend Contextually Context in Chapters mn ‘The Caso About the Facts, sues, and Rulings. [Read the Decision ofthe Trial Court ‘or the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, 2 “6 6 ao 50 “FIR” Mothoi in Case Diet: Historial Discussions V. Examination Questions Analysis Objective and Problem Type Questions ‘The FIR" Pattern in Problem Type Questions Secing the Sylogam in the Probe acts to Hlemente (of law) Correspondence. VL. Argumentative Writing Argumentatve Writing Defined. The Syl Pater in Arruentative Writing. 1 INTRODUCTION (Whats ogee rere's an anewer from Comedy Central: ‘Two rednocks, Bubba and Cooter, decided tht, they ‘werent going anywhere inhi end tought they should Prtocalloge to gu aon ‘Hub gous in ru, and the professor advises him to take saath Mito and og “What loge? asked Bub. ‘The prfemoranewered, "Lat me ive you nn example: Do Jou bwn a weed hacker? “Ture da anmwered the redaeck. “Thao Tan aaeume, that you havea yard” cele pees en “That ual ou” the ednock responded in awe "The profesor consinaed, “Loge will aul me that since sou hrwea yur You uliphave. house” Impressed, the redneck shouted, "AMAZING™ “And pe oma, lg tates at you ave “Betty Mae! This is incredible” “Final, size you have wif, lal can aera ESE Seianateun te proto “Youre aboluely right! Why, tha the most fasinsing ‘hing over Boar of Lean wal to take th lgs clan Bubb, proud of the new word opening upto him, walkod ‘bck nt the hallway where Canter wes waiting "Be what lasos ary takin” he aka. Math history and log” epi Bubb. 2 ASIC THCHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING Comer ak, “Wha gi “Tat me gv you an example. Do yaowa «nee-ater?™ Na “ore ay. aint yar™ Ona serious note, loge comes fom the Grek word “logo.” which iteally means word" speech” I ali mennn“n lea Sraasn” or "tisoureo" The early Greck philosophers began ting this term to mean “principe of order and kom ‘Asm primcpl it ound na tol vo evaluate he value of an ‘ssertiono ruth elas Today, logic ia popularly defined as "the science and ‘art of correct thinking Sconce is'»systematized body of Enowodge. Logic as scence simply means tat iLampleye the sme approach and atid in etudying ts object Ierelies on catch ocr servation, critical analysis, and conclusive rational roots. ~ Arguments are the objot of etudy in logic. Here, they ‘are carofully considered and ertially analyzed. Most immpor- {tantly their conclusions are evaluated as to how necessary or probable thoi assertions ure Historical Background of Logie Historically, the development of logic as a study cs be trucod back to the Greek Pre-Socratie philosophers! starting with Thales of Miletus around 585 B.C. Theve pre- lao toon — tment 12 _ aE. te 1 ane 8 etn ae pe Croft Inc, New York. om ert ot ech a ya ing oe oto ED atin as hing my In 1 inrropucrion s Socratic philosophers asked questions about the nature of ‘the physical worl. They proposed various anewers and theo loa to these questions. With these varied answers, the need Pato (428-847 B.C), atleast berm acking tho versity and vliiy of dean und thors Hearked, "What i that fan propery be called tr or faae™ What is the conection berween the assumprioné of e-alid argument end its conclnion”, “Whol s the nature of defistion?™ This MndOULed started away of seeing lope onan objet of tu. Tater, logic bocae isl branch of Philowphy log ‘work “Topics he nid down the nature of reasoning t quot “reasoning isan argument in which ert Unings beg al down, something other-than necessary comes about through en ha ter what we kewego is form of argument where the conclusion is drawn froma act of premises The typial examples of logs are “All men are mortal, Socrates tsa man. ‘Therefore, crates is morta” And “Socrates in mortal Plato ts moreal, AAratote be mortal, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are ‘Therefore all men are morta.” As we can see, the form shove contains statements which recalled premises followed by a conclusion, The latter comes tas the nocsesary outcome ofthe premises. The rst example Fy Raia slog Ama dN ‘sandr Hache atin hat le ites uo piephy by iter cven tempsing wo phinepiae timo wo SLs ning pop te tars th sone Somang” 8 "Art, Tpes wasted by WA. Pekar Combe. ‘ [BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING ia what is known as “deductive reasoning” and the sooond is ‘known a “inductive reavoning” ‘Deduective and Inductive Reasonings eductive reasoning is an argument where the contusion fs the necosenry outoome of the premises wile inductive reasoning is one where the conclusion is «probable outcome ofthe promises, Tn the frst example, we start with « general statement ‘bout man —that he is mora, I we grant tat this statement {struc then the conclusion that Soerates is mortal necessarily “fullows” ann matter of course. Socrates being "man" is effectively included in the set of "mortals" based on the Sst premise. This gatond_promive “necessitates” the conclusion, ‘Socrates is mortal” This is deGucive reasoning In logic this “necesita known a inference Ta the second example, we started with a series of par- ticular statement namely: Soerates is moral, Plato is mortal, fund Aristotle is mortal. If we grant these statement to be true, must we conclude from Une tht all men are mertale? ‘Does this conslsion follow? from theae statements? For ustotruly concude that all men nre mortals, weave to account forall mie in the world not just Socrates, Plato, tnd Arinatl. Tis conlusion Uoerefre doos not Yllow” and Thonce, inconclusive. However, ist probable that based on our account ofthese ‘three persons we can conchide Ghat all men are mertal? Yeo, ‘but such concision is only "probable. meaning, it i» may be ‘ruc or not. In other words, the conclusion is falefable. This is inductive reasoning. and iti reasoning. To identify an argument ax deductive oF inductive isnot ‘walkin the parc How the premises relate tothe conclusion Genk Tory explain, i diction aes, nde mt iene wut te eng ef a een ro Sm ‘oat aro howe, the eng chim smth ad, INTRODUCTION . ikey. Ifthe premises aresuch tha the conclusion a necessary, then itis @ deductive reasoning. On the other hand, if the premises are such tht th conclusion is only probable, then {sam inductive ening. But let us move quickly to our main subject ~ the legal reasoning. Legal Reasoning In the legal profession, logical reasoning is vital too. ‘Legal knowledge i formed bythe rules on logic. What we have ‘day as Tega igo is the product of logical reasooing. Vern R. Walker writes that logal reasoning isthe ‘oo! we eh peg ont cad ena prnccia ot a rules, in. howe ras to Song elle i aah elo af ‘This means that a law student, in pursuing a law degree, ‘anda lawyer, writing his pleadings, must use logical reasoning for such reapective tasks. Iis the student's tool for law studies ‘and the lneyers tool fr law practice. This i true with the job of judges and justices. Court decisions are formed using legal ‘oasoning. Logical reasoning therefor ia tho bedrock of all legal know Tn the following chapters, we wil ee how the patterns of reasoning that are taken from logic are applied to legal reasoning. We will ee how these can apply when analyzing ‘the law, court easos, including law school and bar examination ‘questions. SEES enema tie tet Sap reeves st 7 wie ei nine an ed ame societies 0 [BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING Bovery:hing in the universe has form - squares, rec tangles, cirlos, triangles, ot. Those forms make up al things around us, The early Grecke philoaophers obsorved these forms when they studied geometry. They saw these shapes as repeating patterns found in leaves trees, mountains, sky, fand everything clas in nature. What ia more profound is that these philosophers observed that those chapos or patterns fan be understood mathematically. This became the way they ‘iewed mathematics.” Arietotle applied this notion of shapes and patterns in logical reascning. Like mathematics, reasoning has a pattern, ‘ashape. Through these patterns, alsortions ean be evalu- fed. The truth and validity of any assertion ean be known by ovaluating reasoning patterns. These patterns in tara, sake up the rules of loge. We have introduced its most basic form in Chapter 1, namely, the eyllogiom and the pattorns of reasoning such as deductive and inductive reasoning. All these, along with othor kinds of arguments such as arguing from uthority, arguing from definition, and arguing from analogy are dhe very methods used by lnwyers and judges in formulatinglegal concepts interpreting statutes and resolving legal problems: Howover, lal reasoning adds its own unique pattern. Lawyers and judges use the "FIN" method. FIR stands for "TEER Doin, The Mah Gone, Poi, 200,10. ‘Nem Waltr, ewig he Loo anal omring, fre Law eves ep Fholaryeans aw Aner einen aro ‘Somes "Asem dete Mar 38 201% BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 7 “acta” esueg" and Facts refer to the factual content ‘af a legal problem, the Tasos are the points of contentions therein, and the ruling isthe conclusions or more specifically, the decisions of tho courte in the reeslution of such legal problem, This it als the underlying pattern used by lawyers In writing pleadings and other papers auch ax motions oF petitions submitted tothe court, Law students are also trained to use this pattern in digesting published docsions of the ‘Supreme Court. We will discuss this further in Chaptor 4 dentitying Arguments, Understanding logal reasoning starts with identifying arguments, Arguments are the specimen i Example I: “They placed sail harmony above individual rights, srelfare ofthe community over indvidoa anisfactin. ‘Cmpasson above apathy, acres over se ulllment, pitty above materiel, and they taught thatthe ‘il le of a petson mat always beim hemony with {he universe Thus, under sock lealogy, Ub indigyas ‘stnamary law developed uch notions as communal own ‘rip land, the right to ancestral domain, aquisition ‘virgin nnd throug femal eltivtion, concepts a xo Kegel (a tinguished from enrronmentl) justo, nd development of methods of resoliag daputs by using & ‘goetween, or bythe us of mctaphors instead of logical reeaoning™ ‘This long winded paragraph, which i actually composed of only two sentences, appears tobe highly confusing at fist lance, But by enroflly looking at certain “key” words inthis paragraph, ita main iden is shown and ite argument is seen. lore we soe the word “thus” which by itself, indicates somo ——Fiaalow A atin The Ifane of Pine Enders La in the wtapmonof Non Campo Sia Jake IB dour. aber Dest $005, bn No . [BASIC TECHNIQUESIN LEGAL REASONING kind of a concluding thought. Ths indicates that from the word “thus” everything that follows isa conclusion or a part Uheroof. With this in mind, we ean simply mentally add the ‘word "because" at the beginning ofthe first sentence, and we ‘eam now ace is argument: Because) They placed social harmony abore ind vidual rights, wellare ofthe commnity ove indica! Zetetoctin, compassion shove apethy, neice over ‘tfullmens, spetualiy above mateviliom, and they {aught that th seal fe of person must ways be i harmony with the universe ‘Thus, under ouch iecogy the indigenes customary law developed such notions aa communal ownership of land, the gh to ancetral domain, acquisition of virgin Neo rough fy cava, escent of waged (Ge ditingiched from eavronmaatal jase Speen mde omivng daptee by tinge bbween of by the we of matphors insted olga reasoning” Now we know that the argument is simply this: Because they Che indigenous referred to in this paragraph) put importance in soctal harmony and communiey welfare over Individual needs and desires, Indigenous custom ary law develop the following concepts, namely, com munal ownership, right to ancestral domain, ete. Th frgument is that indigenous customary law is such because ofthe indigenous peoples’ values Argument indicators ‘What we did here is simply identify an “argument indi- ctor” which isthe word “thus” in the example no. 1. Argument. Indicatorabelp us unlock theintended argumentin statements like the example above, ‘The following are the typical examples of concluding words which serves as argument indicators BASIC PATTERNS OP REASONING > therefore, + hence frente © whence accondingly ae smetly ‘wherefore thus eansequenty -itfllows that “we may conclude” entaile that ‘-We may infer leslie that /Mtmustbe that asa result Whenever we see these words or any words that con: al eee ee See ee sects ts congl to 1 Walp ee elk ee lite a tpumen he ond enti senate che ese Aled Bel lomiata® Bare nieboc amie seomple “Soi si eat Pi Se So totale rocsmanny ooegree “ees diet tape te eel pe SS eee =e Here, wo ace the word “becauss™ from the start ofthis sontence, Tis indiative ofthe eause of some effect. What is the ease here? The eause is that prliminary investigation was conducted ax judicial process. What is the effect? Tho ‘ect ia thir: preliminary inveetigation dsallows police and browecutore to “cooperate” or work together to build up the Criminal investigation crucial tothe conviction of criminals. ‘This observation is made because in preliminary invostiga: tions, prosecutors are expected to assume an impartial role ike that of judges in determining probable cause. In such Tale Me De Lima, Groin Le S.A Shr Hits of Prins nc in Sara aber Dobe IW 94 p 8 20, —_“BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING system, they distance themselves from police investigators land this is eounterproductvein the development of «criminal ‘ease according to this argument because those prosecutors are tho ones who will eventually prosteute the ease in court. Another argument indicator which ie often used is the term, “admittedly” The idea is quite obvious: something is ‘admitted as crue or obviously agreeable. Itmay be an evidence, ‘testimony, ora theory and the same is admitted as true of considered as obviously agreeable, Brample & “Admitedly, pevcioners had been ranted right of ‘way trough the other adjacent kt owned bythe Spouses ‘Aro Infact othe ot caners use the sid oul in going ‘wand coming from the public highway. Clery. there ie [mn eining ole to and rom the pubic read™ Here, what is said tobe admitted isthe existence ofa of way. Tho wea lot owners of sth pennge way esa ot 'w the public road shows an obvious conclusion that aright of| way evita. The conclusion of this argument is indicated by the word "Clearly" Nature of Arguments Arguments are statements which try to prove something as 552 Ge Tale)” Tn other wards, these statements have “evidentiary” nature in them that qualify them as arguments In the published court decisions of the Philippine Supreme (Gourt known asthe Suprome Court Reports Annotated (SCRA), ‘we can identify the arguments ofthe following participating Courts in a case, namely the tral court, the Court of Appeals, ‘and of cours, tse Supreme Cour itself. The same is true in laboreases where thereare levelssuchasthe Labor Arbiter, the [NLRC, and ofcourse, the Court of Appeals, andthe Supreme ned rm Sur of 200 supreme Court Dace in Proper ond {and Regia 18? Sout, Ober Deer 2011, Vol 36 N48 "Pai Harley Cos brea og, Weswerh Palching Compan, Halen Caton 381». 3 1 —BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING ” Cour. tis important tha in rang the SCRA, we mut be able to identify and ovate nenta made by the Ibwer courts therein ad ot nto the enguments made ‘by the Supreme Court, However, the arguments of the lower ‘courts in the SCRA are normally written in tho third person | fs they are simply referred to by the Supreme Court. But we ‘an deduce these arguments by carefully understanding what the statements say about them. Let us look at 2ome examples, Buample 4 “The RNC slo ruled that treachery etended the cling othe vitim forthe prosecutions evidence shows hat sccuned appellant udenly and. unexpectedly fsppented and shot the vitim who eid ot sense any danger upon him I there an argumentin this rtatement? Yes. The Regional ‘Trial Court (RTC) ie arguing that the crime committed by the accused is murder because the kiling is by means of ‘treachery. Treachery in the Revised Penal Code refers to the fmannor of committing the erime, Killing # person can eithor bbe homicide oF murder depending on te presence of qualifying ‘ircumstances auch a, in this example, crenchery. = ‘With treachery, the killing is committed in such a way that its execution is ensured without dangor to the perpe- trator. Here the RTC argues that the accused “suddenly and ‘unexpectedly appeared and ohot the vitim who did not sense tiny danger upon him’ which connotes treachery. Tho trial ‘court is trying to prove that the crime committed is murder bbeceuse of the treacherous nature of the attack. All those are shown tous by the example given. Brample & “We testified that he was able to positively iectty sccveo appellant at the time ofthe ahestng because the Weg Titer GR Ne HM, Aap 205, 12 ASICTRCHNIQUES HY LEGAL REASONING place where the shooting oocurred was illuminate bythe ‘noon heights rom the neighbor house, and the lap (Gecraat hit unde house ™ Hore, a person testified that he could identify the aeused at the time of the shooting because ofthe fllowing factors: the place was illuminated hy the moon, the lighte from the neighbors houses, andthe lamp from an uncle's house. By his testimony of identifying the accused, he ie asserting that the latter was the one who abot the victim. Its relatively easy to deduce the arguments even from thee statements Example & “The case at bar takes ut to moet dfcult aren of ‘onstietonal law where man ands acsuntable toa ‘uthorcy higher than the sate Tobo eld on balance are ‘he atatessntorest and he respondent religious freedom, Tn this highly sensitive area flaw, the ta of balancing ‘between authority and liberty is most delicate because to the person invoking religous feedom, the consequences tft sane are ot ony temporal" From this example, we see a frst person statement by the Supreme Court. Do you find an argument in these state- mente? Not really. These statements do not appear to be proving something as true. They aro statements that inform i ie tok of alin ple interest and religious fecdom They are Galaraie wntoson by the cures ian things, They eet bone ot nthe telver arguments, The words we see here are preliminary atements which are normally found in Supreme Court ens, ‘Lotus have another example from the Brample 7 "txcradaangucd through counsel, thatthe Decora tion of Paging Faithfulness ecogaian the promacy of ‘the proper publi authortos such that che bound bore Ray Titers. aoe "Mada Bair AAG Me Pen, Aug 2008 | BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING » tose meana ts legalize their unin MR hve asus Ing anguendo thatthe delaratin is vali ebd binding i ber den iti binding only ther o-members a ‘he congregation and serve nly he internal pape of ‘Srplaying tothe ret of tho congregation that she and ther mate area respectable and morally upright coupe ‘Ter rlgous bbe and praca, however exact ver Fide the norms conduct required by law or government nplycer, To rule athervise would create a dangerous [roedont ae towe who cana legalize hit ved rele: {ooship cam ssp jin the Jehoals Witnesses conere ston nd uve thst eligi defense again legal Tait Here, wo are informed right away that "Estrada argued” By careful reading of this paragraph, we find that Esirads the validiey of the Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” He argued thatthe document itself “Fecognizen Use nupremacy, i tho priority of publicauthorities (existing laws on marriage), and that such document, being a private document, is binding onl to private persons, partiu- larly in this ezample the members of the Jehovals Witnesses. (Cited here is Wstrades reasoning: ‘This even auming arqvendo thatthe deslration in valid und binding in hr congregation tie binding only to her comembers inthe congregation and serves only the internal purpose of displaying tothe rest ofthe con (rection that she and her mate are repectalo and ‘orally upright coun” In learning legal reasoning, one must develop the ability to identify the argument in a statement. This isa vital skill ‘that must be aoquired by a student of law ifhe is determined ‘tw oucceed in his pursuit of legal profession. Deductive and Inductive Patiern in Court Cases. ‘At this point, we shall diseuan the most important and most basic paterns of argument in legal reasoning, namely, Eee, me, M4 BASIC TECHNUQUES IN LEGAL REASONING ‘tho doductive and the inductive pattoms. Again, deductive reasoning in one where the conckinon inthe necoasary out ‘ome ofthe premioee, while inductive reasoning is one where ‘the conclusion isthe “probable” outcome of che premises “The crcl thing to do is this: tobe able to identity he ca case, We mi ‘be able to construct ita asllogtm nnd identify what kind of ‘argument (deductive or inductive) ix put forward From thereon, wo will apply this technique in the ex amples in this book. Let us now construct the ayllogiam of strada’s argument inthe exaraple no. 7: 1, Private instruments are binding only to private persone who are partie therein; 2 The Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness is drawn by the members of the Jehovah's Witncsoes who are private pereons; 8. Hence, i ia binding only tite members, By identifying and constructing the sylogstical pattern ‘of an argument, we can easily evaluate ite rousing. With this we can say that the argument above is. @ deductive argument whore tho conclusion “follows” from the premises, If premise no, 1 is true: private instruments are Binding only to private persona who are partcs therein, and ‘factual premise no. 2s leo true: the document was drawn ‘nd signed by private porson, then the conclusion no. 8: the document binds only the parties tot follows" or “necesita” from theso given premises. That is the nature of a deductive argument, Let us have other example: Beample & “ictly, the court is f the opinion tht granting the rinaples 1U- BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 6 Liono' misfortune tobe tapped in a man's body i not bisown doing and should mt bein any way taken agains ae Example no. 8 isa petition fled seoking to “correct” the entries of the name and gender in a birth certificate, The petitioner wanted to change his name “Rommel” to “Maly” fad hia gender being a “Male” to "Female" He prosented the {allowing allegations: that he was already a female physically due to his cox re-assignment turiery, and that this now ferented a factual discrepancy in his birth ertifcate needing the latter to be conrected, The tral court granted is peiion ‘and its argument isthe one quoted above. ‘Lot un constrict the allogiam for thia example. 4 4. Hence, granting his petition is just and equitable. ‘The lower court ie using the inductive reasoning. te pre ‘mises contains particular facte such a: feeling, acting, and thinking as a woman by the petitioner, which are then used fa the basis in eaneluding: thatthe petitioner is "a woman ‘trapped in a mans body, that his situation is" misfortune fand that to grant ia petition would be "just and equitable” Noticeably, statements nos. 2.84 are the concluding state- ‘ments for tis inductive argument. We already learned that the concusio fand finally that this ie an iaeue of “justice” do not “Tllow” Wii oie 8 No. 1248, Ober 2,20, 36 BASICTRCHINIQUES BY LEGAL REASONING from the particular premio given here. This fallaous eeeoning Kiown a2 argument non ssgullu” which means thatthe toncluion/s Hosa nk the premise or Further, the statement concluding that the petitioner is a woman trapped in a man’s body” is at bost a metaphor drawn from subjective porsonal feelings of the petitioner. ‘They are “pereonal opinions” that do nt factor in primarily the aud af court ens.” Car a del ny ih eves. ‘Le us proceod to another example in the same case Example “Before perton ca legally change his given name, he mane present proper or rusonable ae Fay co palling renson jantfying such change. Indio, be ‘ust show that he willbe projudced by the uve of is rue nd fil nem In ths eae, be aed to show, or even lege, any prejuee that he might sulle aso esa of ‘singe trve ond fll nase" ‘This argument is leary a deductive argument. Ke starts with a general rule about changing one's given name, ie, that ‘person mutt show "reasonable cause” or ‘compelling reason" for him to change hia given name. Additionally, such person ‘must show that he suffers prejudice as a result of using his current given nem. In this ase, the petitioner failed to show ‘any prejudice that he might euler aaa result fusing his true ‘Although the conclusion in not spelled out here, we know what iin beause, again, in a deductive argument the ‘conclusion fllows from the premies. The change of name ‘here cannot be granted Wiper ale 0, Seton 0 lt pr ah aes of Con, wits sey sates cme ar tre "lve Hepsi Go, 7458, abe 3,207, [BASIC PATTERNS OP REASONING n ‘The eyllogisms for this argument are ns fllows: 7 1. A porson may change hi given name ihe ean show reasonable oF compelling reason for such change OF thatthe ure of hie given name causes him prejudice. 2 In this case, (he) failed to show any reasonable or compelling reason for the change of his given name, fand neither did he show any prejudice in using such sven name. 7 3, Trereore, hee ot be allowed tochange his iven Im law, there ia what is known a8“ evi once” Circumatantil evidence is an fidence: 7 {nde to prove indirectly the existence or non-existence of a {actor event Tn criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a person when: @) there are more than ‘one circumstance, 6) the fats from which th inferences are ‘derived are proven,@)the combination ofall the circumstances ‘such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Locking a tis criterion, we ce creumstantial evidence kin to an induetive argument because the conclusion (Conviction ina criminal case) is derived fram particular i ‘cumstances, Let's take a lok at the case of Viray v. People of the Philippines.” Viray was employed as dog keeper and was charged with the crime of qualified thet His employer alleged that She locked the doors of her house and lft Virayto attand the dogs in her compound. When the employer came home, she roticod severa) of her things missing ~ jewelry. game boy. cell phones, OD players: and thatthe front door of her house ‘was destroyed, She alo found a plastic bag near her bedroom which contained a tshirt and a paie of shorte belonging to Viray Te tian om — Are dr: March 28, 2017 oxi Rad Br nh Sty 28 BASIC TECHNIQUES IV LEGAL REASONING Horo, wehave several circumstances: Viray was let with ‘the dogs, soveral pereonal propertios of the employer were ‘missing, the front door was destroyed, anda plastic bag owned by Viray found near the employer's bedroom and containing Virays tshirt and shorts. Let us now identify the inductive argument in this case ‘Take note that inthis case, diferent conclusions were drawn, ‘by the tral court, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. Bxample 10 1, Vieay was left with the dogs in the house of his employer, 2 Itams belonging tothe employer were missing, the front door destroyed, and a plastic bar was found near the employer's bedroom containing Viray’s Uahiet and shorts 3. neighbor, «laundry woman who saw Viray atthe ‘time ofthe erie with a male companion carrying & big ack, leaving the house ofthe complainant 4 Another laundry woman who said she saw Viray at the time of the crime inside the house of the com: plainants ‘Theee are the particular premises inthis case. The con- clusions drawn frm these however are varied Tho tral court convicted Viray with robbery because the door was destroyed ta get the property. It argued that thoro is "Toreo upon things” ‘and hones the erimo ie robbery. The Court.of Appeals says 0, According oi, Vir enjaved the trust end confidance of the employer because th later entrusted her dogs with him. Viray breached that trust end confidence when he destroyed the door. Hence, Viray ie guilty of qualified theft, The Supreme Court however said both the trial court and the Court of Appeals azo wrong: “The allegation in the infrsation that the offender a a laborer ef the fended party doce nat by lal trithout mors, create the relation of confidence end 1-BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING » ‘nimacyroqird by nw fr the imposition ofthe penalty prescribed for quslied the. Henn, the contusion ‘eathed by the appellate court that peticner commited ‘tualifed thet Because he enjoyed the conBdence ofthe Private complainant being the caretaker of th laters pis withot legal bie, Theolfended pars very own ‘Sisson that the accused was never allowed te ener the house where the olen propertis were Kept refutes the existence ofthe high dapr of eonSdenoy that the ‘ender could have allegedly abused by tocing open the ‘orn ofthe etme hose ‘The Supreme Cour convicted Visay of Single The pay eeatse va trea the Hae Belg the ‘resence of trust and confidence, I ems thatthe Kind of {Bnfidence needed o qualify thecrime ofthe isa high degre tomas’ which he Cone i a sehr Farther at Sree etl wore thoe tings not eatuvted to View. Had {he dogs been the thing sine, the crime would perhaps be valid the ll in al, gases with crcumstanial evidence are god examples of inductive enening Tr um, we have Tearned that loge retoning follows the basic patra lpi mach ax deductive and inductive trllogiam. Tobeierundrstandcourtcaen were identify fin contri the syle] forms of the arguments found in dhe, Wo also lermed that arguments indicators help us Unlock the logical reesoningofcertain statements To the Next ‘Supler we wil explore other pattern of legal reasoning, Exercises: Tdentify ifthe item isan argument of not. Ifthe item is ‘an argument, identify its argument indicator if there is any ‘and construct its splogis. If th item ie not an argument, ‘ive reasons for your answer 1. "The trial court declared that Aguete did not sgn the Joan documents, iT not appear before the Notary Public to acknowledge the execution of the loan documents, didnot receive the loan proveeds from _BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING PNB, and was not aware of the loan until PNB notified her in August 1978 that che and her fam should vacate the mortgaged property because ofthe expiration ofthe redemption period. Under the Civil ‘Code, the effective law a the time ofthe transaction, ea could not encurober any real property of the con- jugal partnership without Aguotes eneent. Aguete ry, during their marriage and within 10 years from the transaction quostioned, ask the courts for the annalment ofthe contract her husband entered ‘nto without her consent, especially in the present cage where her consent is required." 2 The appilate our stated hat the tra court concluded forgory without adequate proof thus i was improper forthe trial court to rely soTay on [Agvetes testimony that her signacures on the loan documents were forged. The appellate court doc Tared that Agucte affixed her signatures on the documents knowingly and with her fll consent. ‘Asouming arguendo that Aguete did not give her fcanaent to Ros loan, the appellate court ruled that the conjugal partnership is still lable because the Joan proceeds redounded tothe benefit of the fail. ‘The recor of the ease reveal that the lan was sed for the expansion ofthe family’s businese. Therefore, the debt obtained is chargeable against the conjugal partnership” 3, Laleo beliewe that as an Associate Justice of the ‘Court (who ean no longer take part if and when the [present ease comes up tthe Court for review), have ‘the duty to express my views on any interpretation ofthe applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution particularly on a point that I believe had been ‘erroneously applied ~ for to condone an error and the practice that spring from it, isto violate my Gi PatipieNetona Rank, Ho, 7010 Age 6.208, ‘oath of office by permitting 1 continuing violation of the Constitution 4, ‘The respondent cannot also bo considered a natural- ‘bom Philippine citizen: ‘4 since her citizenship cannot be established, re: ‘ngnizod, or prosumed, che hed no citizonship tolreacquire under Republic Act No. 0225; even if she had been a natural-born Philippine ‘itinen, her naturabzation inthe U.S. rendered her ineligible to be considered natural-born. As foreigner who had undergone an expedited form of naturalization undor Republic Act No. 8298, sho had to porform acts to neque Phil. ippine citizenship and did not, therefore fall tinder the Constitution's definition of « natural born itzen I. therefore, vote to ainquality the respondent ‘Grace Pe for ho potion of Sena ofthe Repeic the Phippines” 8. The Clveland standard, however, doesnot throw light wth ue inthe cane aba, Th pronounce tents of the US, Suprome Court tht pagany Enel ne So reply tthe Puliping shee Maine bt aT Frncke pba. alien Cleveland, thor swe {rispradence tn Phlipgine juridstion holding tht Ube daesue o eligiou frestom of « member othe ‘hovabs Wilitnoe under to oamne Searatancee 2 respondent wll not prevail avert lawn, on ‘Multery,conebinage or tome ots la. We cannot summarily smctude thereae that her conduct Tiewine so odfous and barbaric ast be immoral and punishable by law = aD ii lI, ri in he SET Cae N05 = taeda Rarer AM, Nn P2181, Aug 4 2008, 22 ———_-BASICTECHNIQUESIN LEGAL REASONING Suggested Case Reading: 1. People v. fie, Git, No. 209068, August 8, 2015, 2. Estrada v. Eacritor, AM. No, P-02-1661, August 4, 2008. 8, Silverio v, Republic, GIR. No. 174680, October 22, ‘2007, 4. Vinay v, People, GIR, No. 205180, November 11, 2018. MIDTERM ~ APR -29-34 rity OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAL REASONING Bitte previous chaptor, we learned about deductive and inductive reasoning, and argument indicators. In this chap- ter, we willbe dealing with other patterns of logical reasoning ‘that are used in legal reasoning, ‘Those patterns aze the following: “reasoning from definition,” “ifand then reasoning.” ‘and “rensoaing from the principles of [aw.” Reasoning from Definition Sometimes the key to resolving « legal problem ie in defining a term, In such a situation, the arguments we find ‘center around the very deisition of such a term. a log, the frguments are referred to aa "erguments from definition.” © ‘Av epumont fom dion“ ap-arguent in whieh the conclusion is claimed to depend. merely upan the definition ‘There area numberof casos decided by the Supreme Court ‘which can be eategorized as argumenta from definition. Let us take a leak at some of them. Bromple Practin oflaw means any activi, nor out of our, which sears the aplication of law, loge pro#duro, Knowledge, taining and experiencn ‘To engage ia the racic law ato perform Uhee acs which are cerns {eriton of tho profession. Generally. to practice Taw ia to pve nalce or render any kindof service, which device Cor eerviee requires the use n any dogree of legal know Fined Hy, Cone erat Lape, Worth Plaine ‘Campanas Cairn, 100-7 3 24 ——_BASIC-TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING ledge or ski Interpreted in the light of the various ofaitions of the term "Practice of law particularly the ‘modern conopt of rw practi, and taking into consid ‘ation tho ioral enstrction intnded bythe eames tf the Costittion, Atty. Monod’ past work experiences ft 8 Inwyeraconeniet,« laworsmanager, # Inver: nerepreneurof industry, lawyer negotiator of contact, fand a Towyerlogilatorof both the ch andthe por — ‘verily moro than ati tho constitutional rogiremont that he has boon engaged inthe protice of aw for at least ten ents” ‘This example is taken from the case of Cayetano v. ‘Monsod/*Tn this case, Atty. Monsod waa appointed by former President Corazon Aquino as Chairman ofthe Commission on Election. Atty. Cayetano challenged the validity of Monsod’s ‘appointment saying thatthe latter was notin the practice of law fora last 10 years ‘Tho issue here is obvious: What isthe “practice of law"? "The Supreme Court took great pains in discussing the diverse conceptions of the term historically, and it took not of what it refers to a8 "moder concept of law practice” Tt ehen defined the practice of law as: 1, any activity, in oF out of court, which requires the pplication of law, legal procedure, knowledge train- Ing and experionce; 2, to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the uoe in any degroe af legal knowledge or sill: ‘This definition was then applied favorably to Atty “Monsod, 10 wit: “Atty. Monaod’s pact work experiences... more ‘han satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been ‘engaged in the practice of law for atleast ten years” Let us row put example no 8in a eylogism: TET Tons Setemtr 08. OTHER PATTERNSOP LEGALREASONING 25 1. The Comelee Chairman must have engaged in the practi of law for at least 10 years prior to hi ‘ppointment as such; 2. The practice of law means, any activity, in or out of court, which Tequines the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, taining and experince; to {ivenoticeor render any kind of sarvice, which device fr service requires the use in any degree of legal Knowledge or ski, 8. Atty, Monsod’s past work experience ‘economist alawyer-manager, ala. of industry, a lawyer-neqotintor of contract, and a Tawyerlogslator of both the rich and the poor for more than 10 years constitute the practice of law, 4. Therefore, Atty, Monsod is qualified to be appointed ‘ax Comelee Chairman. Another example of argument from definition is the cave of Oreo v. Comelec Here, the Comelee promulgated Resolution No. 8714 banning the carrying or transporting of “firearms and deadly weapons during the election period. In this resolution, aiaoft guns or thei replicas were included ‘prohibited firearms. Oneeo Sled a petition challenging the wally of Resolution No, 8714 (Orceo'sreasonings are read ms follows: Brample 12: 1, The Omnibue Election Cod dons not include airsoft guns and their replicas in ite definition of firearms: 2, ‘The law intends thatthe word “firearm is taken to moan in ita commen and ordinary usage; 8. Including sirsft guns and their replicas in the Reso lution No, 8714 would have the effect of “criminal- ‘aing” the sport. 26° BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING “The deductive syllogism forthe abovecited arguments, towit: 4. The Omnibus Election Code prohibits the carrying of firearms during the election period: 2, Airsoft guna and other gua replicas aro not frearme ‘within the moaning of firearm in the Omribus lection Code; Therefore, the carving of sof gun and other gun replicas must noc bo Probie Guring the elecion period. From Oross point of view, cis case depended on the seating ofthe word “firearm? onder the Omnibus Elestion ‘ole. Ths was the point of notation according to im But the Supreme Court did not share his view. The ‘Court resnved the controversy by leking at purpose ofthe frohbton. The purpose, according to the Supreme Court {o avoid the "suing af fear dimidation, or trey during ‘he lection prod” Tie condition sid the Court, frustrates {he wil oft voters during dh election pera. The Court, ressoned that sisct guns are indistinguohabe frm areal fquntoan ordinary enn: The far could case to voters in the sume far caused by ral pun ‘Weean put thi reasoning in the flowing yogi: 1. The Omnibus Election Cade prohibits the carying and transporting of freerms during the election eri ae tere couonie fran chace rutting the wil the votes 2 Airsoft gune ares ndstnguishabl from real re: ari and they can alan cause fear and ehacs onthe voters 8. Therefore, airsoft guns must be prohibited alongside firearms cn election period’* Fp wr mate aw amin “rt the ape! the Supa Court mach amen goer ne a Sl ero all terior rion IML-OTvERPAPTERNS.OF LECALREASONING 77 Logically speaking, the conclusion here “follows” from the premises. The major premise deale withthe prevention of {fear and chaos end itis indood true that, in all appearances, “nirsoft guns" and their replicas loa very similar to real rune, The argument is indeed valid. However, it can stil be faintained thatthe Election Code prohibits only "iresrms” and “rreoRt guns," technically speaking, are not “frearms.” Tecan still be insated thatthe iatue is the vory dfinition of “firearm.” Nevertheless, the Court's argument stands a itis ‘the final arbiter fll legalcontroversy in the land, Cleary, the Court upheld not the leter but the “aplet™ of the prohibition inthe Let us have another example. premarital sx between bo on ts out el impesinet to tory on oar ws ne exch other doce nt fall witha tha enter: ‘These are the words of “Cheryl” who got fred from a Catholic echool for engaging in premarital aex and became Dregaant. The schol fired her on the ground of “iegraceful, {Immoral conduct." Choryl alleged that when two tnmarred ‘adults had gex and later married, they are not doing a “dis- fracefl or immoral conduct” ‘Tho pivaal ius here ie the SaniSe of “igractel immaral conduc” found in the Manual of Regulations SERRE saocls which ee gound for termination of Ctnployment therein. However the manual dd nat define what Tia rnin ieteretgthe ewippil whe he ae i sin egal Apa ein fete a al ‘Stoned ate ents ntan parne mane rere and ‘Sorc mst aged yong Asa Sa heb bel Clg Oo 726 January 2852018 28 BASIC TECHNIQUES IV LEGAL REASONING cof or iramoral conduct is. It did not give instances tuting “disgraceful or immoral conduct.” ‘The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the termination of Chery arguing that sex outside marriage indeed immoral The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRCs decision. The CA has the same reasoning with the NLRC Brample 14 Potions peonaney prior to marrage sendal- unin tal gvnthe work cevironment and social maiieu She waa in. Respondent schoa for young adcepreisly feoks to prevent its students foot stentions Ue thi {calatng in them sit moral values and sandarda Being part of he institution, petitioners private and pub Ie bi could not be separated. Her admited premarital sero relations was # vito of private Feepodents Prsribol standards of conduct that view pre-aial {crs immoral becatee ox between aman and 8 woman ‘unt only ake place within he bounds of marriage” Hore, “immoral conduc” ig defined in light ofthe nature the work enone’ othe nttian The CA eed {hat the ta or young lies Stow for what i coneidered an “etrct oral vaer and Sstandarde” The institution maintained that sex between a ‘nan and a woman must only be within marriage. Employees ‘herein must also abide by its moral values in thes public and private lives, For having engeged in premarital ex and got pregnant, Cheryl violated that moral standard expected of hr being an employee of the institution. She can therefore be validly terminated ‘Putting the arguments insylogiam, out: 1, This is a Catholic institution which believes that sox must only be between m man and a woman in tmarriage and that premarital sex isa fd immoral” conduct. {MI-OTIIERPATTERNSOPLPGALREASONING 29 2 Cheryl, being an employee of this institution abides by this belie and standard of moral value Cher engaged in premarital sex. 4 Therefore, Cheryl] committed a disgraceful and immoral act and had violated the boief and moral standard ofthe institution ‘The argument is clearly deductive and it defines “dis: ‘raceful and imioral conduct” according tthe moral standard Trl by the institution, The standard lao cet tho boundary for sex, ies marriage, Heing deductive, the argument is tight ‘root The conclusion truly follows from the premives Let us acc how the Supremo Court resolved tis case. Bramples 15: ‘That the poitioner was emploved by a Catholic ed cation inion pers des ot abesutly determine ‘thether her progeaney cut of welbek is degroefl [nmera, Thor sla neces to datorine whether the petiioners propnancy out of week te considered ‘degree or ioral in accordance with the prevalling forma conduet™ ‘he Cour argument bere his i not ue Caaie educational ins ld define the-mon immoral be “conduct.” By these words, the Supreme Court scomed to have ‘taken the ruler and the judge out of the Catholic institution land flung it out to what it categorized ac tho “prevailing ‘porms of conduct” Let us put the Court's reasoning in a slog. 1, The Catholic inatitution says that pregnancy out of wedlock sa diegraceful and irmoral conduc. 2, But ie doesnot have the authority to define what it

    You might also like