James L.

Decolongon
Legal Techniques and Logic

Tanada vs. Tuvera

1. General premise:
Petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition for
writ of mandamus not being personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the
alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances in question.
Minor premise:
When the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to
procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party
in interest.
Conclusion:
The right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right
recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. Therefore, petitioner
has the legal personality and standing.
2. General premise:
The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application,
which have not been published, shall have no force and effect.
Minor premise:
Former President Marcos issued presidential issuances without publications of
such in the official gazette of the republic of the Philippines.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the presidential issuances of former Marcos shall have no force and
effect.
3. General premise:
The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
applicability" is mandated by law.
Minor premise:
Presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their
violation or otherwise impose a burden or the people, such as tax and revenue
measures are of public in nature and general applicability.
Conclusion:
Therefore, presidential decrees need to be published.
Oposa vs. Factoran
1. General premise:
Filipinos have the right to balanced and healthful ecology
Minor premise:
Petitioners Oposa et.al are Filipinos
Conclusion:

Therefore, Petitioners Oposa et.al have the right to balanced and healthful
ecology
2. General premise:
Scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful
ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four
per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural,
residential, industrial, commercial and other uses
Minor premise:
More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth
rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago
and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth
forests.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the Philippines is suffering from unbalanced and unhealthful
ecology.
3. General premise:
Petitioners are all minors represented by their parents and guardians, bringing
a suit for their right to balanced and healthful ecology against respondent.
Minor premise:
Inter-generational responsibility is a legal standing class suit for minors
representing the future generations to come for a balanced and healthful ecology.
Conclusion:
Therefore, petitioners as minors representing future generations have the legal
standing as a class suit.
Article 2 of RPC
1. General premise:
X killed Y in a Philippine registered Ship while in the high seas.
Minor premise:
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code(RPC) shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine archipelago, but also outside of its jurisdiction against those
who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
Conclusion:
Therefore, X is liable under the Revised Penal Code.
2. General premise:
X forged the Philippine note in Malaysia.
Minor premise:
The RPC provides that RPC shall be enforced outside the Philippine
Archipelago against those who should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Philippine islands or obligations and securities issued by the government of
the Philippine island.
Conclusion:

Therefore, X shall be held criminally liable under RPC for forging Philippine
note.
3. General premise:
X is a consul of the Philippines in Malaysia. X malverse some public funds for
his personal use in Malaysia.
Minor premise:
Article 2 of RPC provides that the provisions of the RPC shall be enforced not
only within the Philippine archipelago but also outside of its jurisdiction against those
who while being public officers or employees should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, X shall be held criminally liable under the RPC for malversing public
funds while being a public officers in the exercise of his functions.