LEGAL LOGIC

Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Fundamental Concepts in Legal
Reasoning

Submitted by:

Barrantes, Ezra

Diaz, Angelica Shane

Fernandez, Hanz Kristofer

Lasala, Shantee

Magsino, Jamaica

Ng, Jeremiah

Profugo, Louise Mariz

Sta. Ines, Meredith Rose

Trinidad, Lizette

Submitted to:

Atty. Victor Cayco

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC Set A (2nd Semester-Tuesday)

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Logic and Law

Logic is the study of the principles and methods of good reasoning. It is a

science of reasoning which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of good
(correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect) reasoning.

Logic, being the science of correct and sound reasoning, is indispensable in the
field of law. The efficiency of practicing law depends on the quality of legal
reasoning.

1.2 Legal Reasoning

Legal Reasoning is what we use when we apply laws, rules, and regulations to
particular facts and cases; it is what we use when we interpret constitutions and
statutes, when we balance fundamental principles and policies and when we
evaluate evidences, and make judgments to render legal decisions.

By examining and evaluating the elements and structures of legal reasoning,

our legal judgments and decisions will shift from mere subjective preference to
objective rationale.

1.3 Arguments as an Expression of Reasoning

Legal reasoning, like any kind of reasoning, is expressed through arguments,

and it is with arguments that logic is chiefly concerned. In Logic, however, an
argument is a claim put forward and defended with reasons. To be more precise,
an argument is a group of statements in which one statement is claimed to be
true on the basis of another statement/s.

The skill of determining the logic of arguments demands the ability to analyze
the structure and content of arguments. Thus, it is fundamental that one can
identify in a particular argumentative passage the two basic elements in an
argument- the conclusion and the premise/s.

Example 1. Abortion should not be legalized even in cases of rape and incest
because it is not morally permissible to kill an innocent, defenseless child due
to someone else fault.

Conclusion (1st phrase) and the premise (2nd phrase)

Example 2. MMDAs campaign to get rid of sidewalk vendors is right. The

proliferation of these sidewalk vendors slows down the movement of vehicles
causing heavy traffic.

Conclusion (1st statement) and the premise (2nd statement)

1.4 Recognizing Arguments

 An explanation is an attempt to show why something is in the case while an
argument is an attempt to how that something is in the case.

Example:

Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the SC because the

Court found inherent inconsistencies in the evidences provided by the
prosecution.

Any law that prohibits people from expressing their views is

unconstitutional because our Constitution guarantees the freedom of
speech.

-Looking at these two passages they look similar. Both gave reasons;
use the indicator word because; and the most important difference
between the two is that, the first is an explanation while the second is
an argument.

An explanation shows WHY something is in the case.

Although both give reasons, the NATURE of these reasons differs in the following
manner:

Explanations are usually the causes or factors that show how or why a thing
came to exist, against arguments which are intended to provide grounds to
justify a claim or to show that it is true.

Arguments intend to prove or establish that something is in the case that is

to provide reasons or evidence for accepting a claim.

Unsupported opinions are statements of belief or opinion about what a

speaker/writer happens to believe. Such can be true or false, rational or irrational,
but they are parts of arguments only if the speaker/writer claims that they follow
from or support, other claims.

Example:

I agree with the proposed Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act being discussed at
present in a bicameral conference committee of the Congress. RA 9344 must
be amended. The minimum age of criminal liability must be lowered from 15
to 12.

This cannot be considered as an argument because:

-There is NO PREMISE/REASON given why the minimum age of criminal liability

must be lowered.
-No BASIS/EVIDENCE was given to show that RA 9344 is wrong.

Conditional statements are those that contain an if-then relationship. It is made

up of 2 basic components: 1st is called the antecedent or the if-clause and the
2nd is called the consequent or the then-clause.
 Example:

If the Philippines adopts a parliamentary government, then we will not

elect a President anymore.

We will not elect a president anymore because the PH adopted a

parliamentary government.

On this example, neither the 1st nor the 2nd statement is asserted to be
true.
Thus it only asserted that the 1st statement implies the 2nd statement, but
there is no premise asserted, no inference is made, and no conclusion is
claimed to be true.

We will not elect a president anymore because the PH adopted a

parliamentary government.

However on this example, this is an argument as is suggested by the

presence of the premise-indicator because.

The 2nd statement claims to follow from that 1 st statement as a premise that
is asserted to be true.

1.5 Components of Legal Reasoning

All legal reasoning follows a similar pattern in order to prove, defend or justify
its claim. There are essential components that must be present in the legal
argument and these are the following:

A. ISSUE of the argument

An issue is a point in dispute, in question , in discussion or in consideration in a
case and always formulated in an interrogative sentence.

The whole argument is basically directed by the issue at hand. This means that
the relevance of the premises depends on the very issue the argument is
addressing.

B. RULE- legal rules governing the issue

To argue a legal case one must be able to cite a rule (a statute or an ordinance)
and apply it to a set of facts. An argument has no weight unless it cited exactly
which rule is being relied upon.

The rule can also take the form of cases or principles that the courts have
already decided. The reasoning here usually consists of arguing that the case
under discussion is similar to that prior case (stare decisis) or principle.

C. FACTS - relevant to the rule cited

 For the purpose of legal analysis, we look for material facts. These are the
facts that fit the elements of the rule. The rule would be satisfied if the facts of
the present case cover all the elements of the rule.

The facts should not be one-sided. A strong set of facts presented by the other
side would give the legal counsel a greater chance of winning the case.

The Supreme Court said: Every decision of a court of record shall clearly and
distinctly state the facts and law on which it is based.

D. ANALYSIS - applicability of the facts to the said rule

This is the part to show where the link between the rules and the facts
presented to establish what were claiming in the argument. The concern here is
whether the material facts truly fit the law.

Thus analysis requires taking into account the (a) basis of the conduct of the
parties involved, (b) and the determination of the degree of persons distress
which can be quantified by the intensity, duration and physical manifestations
of this emotional experience.

E. CONCLUSION - implication of applying the rule to the given facts

The conclusion is the ultimate end of legal argument. It is what the facts, the
rules and the analysis of the case amount to.

1.6 Evaluating Legal Reasoning

Two general criteria to distinguish correct from incorrect legal reasoning:

1. TRUTH
2. LOGIC

Two main processes involved in legal reasoning:

1. Presentation of facts which pertains to the question of truth.

2. Inference (deriving a legal claim or judgment from the given laws and facts)
which pertains to the question of logic.

First process: Presentation of facts question of truth

-Are the premises provided in the argument true or acceptable?

-It is necessary for the conclusion of a legal argument to be grounded on factual
basis, for if the premises that are meant to establish the truth of the legal claim
(conclusion) is questionable, the conclusion itself is questionable.
-Disputes in the court are not about laws but about matters of fact. The
opposing sides would present different, and sometimes contradictory, facts to
support their case.
-Was the person accused present in the place where the crime was
committed or was he in a different place as he is claiming?
-Did the act of A cause the injury of B?
-Did the plaintiff suffer severe emotional distress?
 The questions which are the facts and which are not, are what judges have to
decide after weighing the pieces of evidence and arguments of both sides.

The legal reasoning that will prevail is that which is grounded on truth or
genuine facts.

Second process: Inference question of logic

-Is the reasoning of the argument correct or logical?

-Does the conclusion of the argument logically follow from its premises?
-The questions point to the second criterion of a sound legal argument: LOGIC.
-The premises of the argument must not only be factual but the connection of
the premises to the conclusion must be logically coherent, that is, the
movement from the facts, to the analysis, and to the main claim must be valid.

Chapter 2. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING

2.1 Burden of Proof

Duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil
case.

Basic is the rule on evidence that the burden of proof lies upon him who asserts it,
not upon him who denies, since by the nature of things, he who denies a fact
cannot produce of it.

Equipoise doctrine- when the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there
is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against
the party with the burden of proof.

2.2 Evidence

Evidence is the means sanctioned by the rules of court, of ascertaining in a judicial

proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule 130, section 3 of the revised
rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such document is the
subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was
actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need
to account for the original.

2.3 Admissibility and Relevance

Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to the issue and more importantly,

if it is not excluded by the provision of law or by the Rules of Court. As to
relevance, such evidence must have such relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence to be believed must
 proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself
as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of
mankind.

2.4 Testimony of Witness

Testimony is generally confined to personal knowledge, therefore excludes hearsay.

Thus, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided under Rules of Court.

2.5 Expert Testimony

Expert testimony refers to statements made by individuals who are considered as

experts in a particular field. Note that under the Rules of Court, the opinion of a
witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which
he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.

2.6 Examination

Under the Rules of Court the order in which an individual witness may be examined
is as follows:

a) Direct examination by the proponent - refers to the examination-in-

chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue

b) Cross-examination by the opponent - the witness may be cross-

examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct
examination

c) Re-direct examination by the proponent - questions on matters not

dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court in its
discretion

d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent - the adverse party may re-

cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination

After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the
witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may required.

A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called by:

- contradictory evidence
- evidence that his general reputation for truth, honest, or integrity is bad
- evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other

times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statement
 must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and
the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them.

2.7 Dependence on Precedents

"Stare decisis et non quieta movere" This is the bedrock of what we now refer to as
precedents.

When a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a precedent which should
be followed in subsequent cases before the same court. The rule is based wholly
on policy, in the interest of uniformity and certainty of the law, but is frequently
departed from.

The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere is embodied in Article 8 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines. It is based on the principle that once a question of law
has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further
argument, 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.