WRITING AS AN

ADVOCATE -
ARGUMENTS
 GOOD ARGUMENTS DEPEND ON TWO
THINGS.
 AUTHORITIES.
 AND THE EFFECTIVE USE OF
AUTHORITIES.
 The side with better authorities supporting
its position does not always win.
 For you to be able to write good arguments,
you need good authorities and sources.
 The key here is diligent and exhaustive legal
research.
 But more than that, you also need to
effectively use your arguments.
 In the end, it does not matter that you have
better authorities or you conducted a more
exhaustive research.
 The question is: Did you effectively use your
authorities?
 You may have fewer sources and authorities,
but if you use them more effectively, you
will be better off than her who found more
and better authorities.
 THE EFFECTIVE USE OF AUTHORITIES
REQUIRES THREE PRIMARY SKILLS.
 FIRST. You must be able to build affirmative
arguments using favorable sources.
 SECOND. When important authorities may
be interpreted or read to support either side’s
position, you must be able to show that the
law supports YOUR position.
 THIRD. You must be able to adequately
address or respond to the other side’s
favorable authorities, i.e., using counter
arguments.
 These basic skills are shown by the
following tips.
 In cases where controlling authorities
support your position, make sure the court
sees those early and clearly.
 Cite and quote key cases. But do not forget
to explain and emphasize the salient facts
and relevant principles in those cases.
 Avoid simply starting with “In X vs. Y,”. Try
making an effective introduction on the
importance of the case you will discuss next.
 E.g., The case of Cruz vs. CA, where the
Supreme Court discussed the jurisdiction of
the HLURB, is controlling here.
 Do not just dump quotes and passages from
cases without any discussion.
 Should you discuss as many cases that
support your position as you can?
 You can cite many cases supporting your
position, but you should discuss only one or
some, not all, of these cases.
 When you need to discuss the evolution of a
legal principle, synthesize case doctrines to
help your reader see what a line of cases is
about.
 Utilize footnotes to synthesize case
doctrines. You can use short, effective
parentheticals to quote short case passages in
the footnote.
 When critical authority can be read to
support either side, emphasize the ways it
supports your side.
 When the court does not seem to be required
by any authority to resolve a case in a
particular way, you should make your
authorities seem compelling.
 How?
 Discuss the logic of your case, use analogy,
cite deliberations.
 Remember to cite statutes and regulations
especially if they are exactly in point and
need no interpretation.
 Downplay the effect of cases adversely
interpreting these statutes by focusing on
factual and reasoning differences.
 If necessary, you may cite doctrines
pronounced in analogous cases (i.e., cases
whose facts are not necessarily square with
yours but at least analogous).
 In what order should you discuss your
arguments?
 It is often advisable to discuss your most
powerful argument first, then your second
most powerful argument, and so forth.
 Should you discuss all arguments you can
think of?
 It’s best to eliminate a weak argument. If you
can’t eliminate it, ‘sandwich’ it within strong
arguments.
 You need to launch your argument by some
topic sentence or opening argument.
 You may do this by briefly stating your
opponent’s claim which you will assail.
 You may also do this by stating at the outset
your thesis or proposition, i.e., your topic
sentence.
 COUNTER ARGUMENTS
 Read in the original all of your adversary’s
important authorities.
 Explain what happened in your adversary’s
best cases and then provide reasons why
these cases should not apply to the dispute.
 You can either distinguish or diminish
adverse authorities.

 Distinguishing – show inapplicability

 Diminish – show why it should not be
applied
 Focus especially on the other side’s best case
or argument.
 Is it alright to concede points?
 Yes, but not too much. Also, know when a
denial is not enough.

 “Successive denials make concessions. An

‘answering’ case is a positive case.”
 Can you stretch the law to favor your side?
 “Both law and facts bend and stretch, like an
elastic. Stretched too far, they snap.”
 This is a question only of effective framing,
NEVER misrepresentation, misquotation,
fabrication of facts, misuse of authorities,
etc.
 The problem with many lawyers is they
stretch the facts and the law too much –
especially the law. With enough power and
influence, anyone can make a simple rule of
law complicated, or a complicated one too
simple. At the end of the day, remember that
like any human invention, the law is just a
tool. Always be careful how and for what
objective you use the law.
 My personal rule is that if an argument is
honestly debatable, not a trying-hard
argument, I will allege it. If you will argue
something solely for an ulterior motive, do
not dignify the argument because if you do,
you will not dignify yourself. Always let
your conscience, decency, and integrity
dictate how you use the law.