Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Legal Reasoning – what we use when we apply laws, rules and regulations to
particular facts and cases; what we use when we interpret statures, when we
evaluate evidence and render judgements.
Explanation vs Argument:
1. Explanation – tries to show why something is the case, to show why a thing
came to exist, i.e
“Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the SC because the Court found
Legal Technique and Logic Summary (Aquino's Book)
LEGAL LOGIC SUMMARY REVIEWER
Based on the Book: Legal Logic (Aquino)
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Legal Reasoning – what we use when we apply laws, rules and regulations to
particular facts and cases; what we use when we interpret statures, when we
evaluate evidence and render judgements.
Explanation vs Argument:
1. Explanation – tries to show why something is the case, to show why a thing
came to exist, i.e
“Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the SC because the Court found
Legal Technique and Logic Summary (Aquino's Book)
LEGAL LOGIC SUMMARY REVIEWER
Based on the Book: Legal Logic (Aquino)
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Legal Reasoning – what we use when we apply laws, rules and regulations to
particular facts and cases; what we use when we interpret statures, when we
evaluate evidence and render judgements.
Explanation vs Argument:
1. Explanation – tries to show why something is the case, to show why a thing
came to exist, i.e
“Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the SC because the Court found
inherent inconsistencies in the evidences provided by the prosecution.”
Example of a Causal Explanation.
“the judge postpones the hearing because defendant failed to appear in court
due to unstable health condition” – the failure to appear brought about the
postponement of the hearing
2. Rule – One must be able to cite a rule, stature or ordinance and apply it to a
set of facts.
Rules have 3 parts:
a. Set of elements, collectively called a test
b. Result that occurs when all elements are present
c. Causal term that determines whether a result is mandatory, prohibitory,
discretionary or declaratory
3. Fact – We look for material facts, which fit the elements of the rule.
Pp vs. Escobar – case where a decision was rendered even before all the
stenographic notes were transcribed, SC said that “Every decision of a court of
record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law which it is based”
and the lower court failed on this standard
4. Analysis – supposed to show the link between the rules and the facts we
presented to establish what we are claiming in our argument.
5. Conclusion – The ultimate end of a legal argument. It is what the facts, rules
and analysis of the case amount to.
prove)
use to
Dependence on Precedents
“Stare Decisis et non quieta movere”
It is a general rule that, when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes
precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases before the same court.
Only upon showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override
the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare
decisis, can the courts be justified in setting aside the same.
Chapter 3: Deductive Reasoning in Law
Syllogisms
Is a three-argument composed of the Major premise, Minor premise and the
Conclusion.
Some deductive arguments have conclusions which do not follow necessarily
from their premises. These are INVALID deductive arguments. A VALID
deductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion really does follow
necessarily from the premises.
Valid argument:
“Insulators are not electric conductors.
Rubbers are insulators; and
Therefore, rubbers are not electric conductors.”
Invalid argument:
“Fraud is criminal offense;
Amalilio committed a criminal offense; and
Therefore, Amalilio committed fraud.”
Categorical Syllogisms
Properties of a Categorical Syllogism
1. Quality – may be affirmative or negative, a statement with terms “no, not,
none and never” is negative and in the absence of such then it is affirmative
Sample of an affirmative statement:
“Some crimes are punishable by imprisonment.
The accused denied the charges against him.”
Sample of a negative statement:
“No one is above the law.
The accused is not guilty of the crime.”
Therefore, this contract (S) does not contain vague terms (P). (conclusion)”
Rules for Validity of Categorical Syllogisms
Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain 2 negative premises.
Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms.
-The terms in the syllogism must have exactly the same meaning and must be
used exactly the same way in each occurrence.
Sample:
“What is natural is good.
To make a mistake is natural.
Therefore, the Congress can abolish the law of supply and demand.” (Invalid)
The term natural is used with two different meanings, the first is something
pure while the second is means as something normal or usual.
“Selling cigars to a person below 18 years is unlawful.
That store sold cigars to a student below 18 years.
Therefore, the store has violated the law.” (Valid)
This is valid since the terms “below 18 years” was used in the same sense.
Note: Violation of this rule is referred to as the Fallacy of Equivocation
Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at least once.
Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise
must be also universal.
Samples:
-“All lawyers read the Philippine Daily inquirer.
All lawyers are literate.
Therefore, all who read the Philippine Daily Inquirer are literate.” (Invalid)
The minor term “those who read the Philippine Daily Inquirer” is universal in
the conclusion but particular in the premise. This is called the fallacy of illicit
minor.
- “Felonies are criminal offenses.
Misdemeanors are not felonies.
Therefore, misdemeanors are not criminal offenses.” (Invalid)
The major term “criminal offenses” is universal in the conclusion but particular
in the premise. This is called the fallacy of illicit major.
- “All acts that inflict more harm than good are unjust.
All terrorist acts inflict more harm than good.
Therefore, all terrorist acts are unjust.” (Valid)
Hypothetical Syllogisms – contains a hypothetical statement as one of its
premises. There are three kinds: (conditional, disjunctive and conjunctive)
Conditional Syllogism – (if-then relationship) but can also be expressed in a
wide variety of different sentences such as:
“Being a teenager these days means. . .”
“The fact that she. . . implies that.”
“Anyone who. . . must be a. . . .”
“Unless you are. . .you will not. . .”
“Whenever heavy rains pour, España is flooded.”
“In case. . . you will. . .”
If you write these statements in if-then forms, their meaning will be the same.
Conditional Syllogism can be symbolized by:
A – antecedent
C – consequent
~ - negation of the statement
> - implies
- for therefore
Enthymemes -An argument that can be founded on a syllogism although not all
parts of the syllogism are expressed. This kind of argument is stated
incompletely, part being understood, or only in the mind, is called such.
“Manuel has been seen running away from a building where a burglar alarm is
ringing.
Manuel is more likely to be the burglar.”
This implies that People who flee from the scene are more likely guilty than if
they did not flee.
These give us truth or information more than what the premises are saying.
What is claimed in the conclusion goes beyond the evidence found in the
premises.
-Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only through analysis of the
content of the argument.
“It’s just right to give this student a passing mark. You see, she is troubled by
serious family problems at present.
Her family can’t afford her education; it’s her aunt who pays her tuition fee. If
she fails in M-101, she might not be supported anymore by her aunt.”
If simplified:
“All students with serious family problems should not be given a failing mark.
Q is a student with serious family problems.
Therefore, Q should not be given a failing mark.”
In this case, one would find it valid and logical but the erroneous reasoning can
be found in the content which says that – the basis in giving a passing or failing
mark is his or her family situation rather than his or her performance in class.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation – leading an opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by using a
term in its different senses and making it appear to have only one meaning
“Gambling should be legalized because it is something we can’t avoid.
It is an integral part of human experience;
People gamble everytime they get in their cars or decide to get married.”
The first use of gambling refers to games of chances while the second use
refers to the risk feature of life itself.
(Using one term and applying two meanings in a statement.)
Lambino vs COMELEC – a case regarding the initiative of changing the 1987
Constitution, such changes that would shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary government. The framers of the
Constitution intended to adopt relevant American jurisprudence on people’s
initiative, and the people must first see the full text of the proposed
amendments before they sign and that people should sign on a petition
containing such full text.
However, the Lambino group only gathered signatures and they theorized that
the difference of amendment and revision is only one of procedure and not of
substance.
Court ruled that the express intent and plain language of the Constitution
contradict the Lambino group’s theory. With the language of the law being
clear and plain, courts do not deviate from such intent and language.
CLASS NOTES
Fallacy – purpose is to deceive, taken from the word “falio” which means I
deceive you.
Kinds of Fallacies:
1. Fallacy of Expression
a. Equivocation
b. Amphiboly
c. Composition
d. Division
2. Non-sequential Fallacy
a. Ignorantia elinchi
i. Argumentum ad hominem
ii. Argumentum ad misericordiam
iii. Argumentum ad baculum