Legal Logic
Legal Logic
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
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
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.
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