UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
CHAPTER 1
Logic
- Study of the principles and methods of
good reasoning
- Science of reasoning which aims to
determine and lay down the criteria of
good (correct) reasoning and bad
(incorrect) reasoning
- Probes into the fundamental concepts of
argument, inference, truth, falsity and
validity, among others
- Studies the principles of good reasoning
- Does not merely describe how people
reason but to discover and make
available those criteria that can be used to
test arguments for correctness
Psychology
- Interested with how people reason
- Looks for patterns of behavior, speech, or
neurological activity that takes place in
the process of reasoning
Legal Reasoning
- What is used in applying laws, rules, and
regulations to particular facts and cases
- What is used when interpreting
constitutions and statutes, in balancing
fundamental principles and policies and
when we evaluate evidences, and make
judgments to legal decisions
Argument
- Quarrel or dispute
- In Logic:
• Claim put forward and defended with
reasons
- A group of statements in which one
statement is claimed to be true on the
basis if another statement/s
- Attempt to show that something is the
case
Two Parts of a Statement in an Argument
1. Conclusion
• Statement being claimed to be true
• Indicators:
➢ Therefore, so, thus, hence
2. Premise
• Statement that serves as the basis or
support to the conclusion
• Indicators:
➢ Because, since, for, inasmuch as
Note: Some arguments do not have any
indicators.
Categories of Arguments
1. Logical or Illogical
2. Valid or Invalid
3. Sound or Unsound
Explanation
- Attempt to show why something is the
case
- Not meant to prove or justify the
particular truth of a particular claim
- Given by citing causes of the event to be
explained
Statement of belief or Opinion
- Statements about what a speaker or
writer happens to believe
- Can be true or false, rational or irrational
- Parts of an argument IF the speaker or
writer claims that they follow from, or
support, other claims
Conditional Statement
- Contains an if-then relationship
- Two Basic Components:
• Antecedent
➢ If-clause
• Consequent
➢ Then-clause
- Not an argument because there is no
claim that one statement is true because
of the other statement
Components of Legal Reasoning
1. Issue
• Any matter of controversy or
uncertainty
• A point in dispute, in doubt, in
question, or simply up for discussion
or consideration
• What is being argued?
2. Rule
• A statute or an ordinance
• Three Parts (according to Richard
Neumann)
➢ Set of elements, collectively
called a test
➢ A result that occurs when all the
elements are present (and the test
is thus satisfied
➢ A causal term that determines
whether the result is mandatory,
prohibitory, discretionary, or
declaratory
• Can also take the form of cases or
principles that courts have already
decided (stare decisis)
• What legal rules govern the issue?
3. Fact
• “Material” facts
➢ Facts that fit the elements of the
rule
• What are the facts that are relevant
to the rule cited?
4. Analysis
• Shows the link between the rules and
the facts presented to establish what
we are claiming in our argument
• How applicable are the facts to the
said rule?
5. Conclusion
• Ultimate end of a legal argument
• What the facts, the rules, and the
analysis of the case amounts to
1
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
• What is the implication of applying
the rule to the given facts?
Evaluating Legal Reasoning
- Two General Criteria
• Truth
• Logic
- Two Main Processes
• Presentation of facts which pertains
to the question of truth
• Inference (deriving a legal claim or
judgment from the given laws and
facts) which pertains to the question
of logic
- Second Criterion: Logic
• The premises of the argument must
not only be factual but the connection
of the premises to the conclusion
must be logically coherent
• The movement from the facts, to the
analysis, and to the main claim must
be valid
CHAPTER 2
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
- In civil cases:
➢ Burden of proof is that the
plaintiff has the burden of
proving the material allegations
of the complaint which are
denied by the answer
- In administrative proceedings:
➢ Burden of proof rests on the
complainant
- Equipoise Doctrine
• When the evidence of the parties is
evenly balanced or there is doubt on
which side the evidence
preponderates, the decision should
be against the burden of proof
Evidence
- Means sanctioned by the Rules of Court,
of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact
Admissibility and Relevance
- Evidence is deemed admissible if it is
relevant to the issue, and if it is not
excluded by the provision of law or by
the Rules of Court
- Evidence must have such relation to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence to have
relevance
Testimony of Witnesses
Testimony
- Is generally confined to personal
knowledge
- Excludes hearsay
• Hearsay Rule
➢ When a witness testifies what he
has merely learned from others
either because he was told, or he
read or heard the same
➢ Exception: Entries in official
records made in the performance
of duty by a public officer
- Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
of Evidence
• A witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of or comes
from his personal knowledge derived
from his perception
Expert Testimony
- Statements made by individuals who are
considered as experts in a particular field
Examination
- The credibility given by trial courts to
prosecution witnesses is an important
aspect of evidence which appellate courts
can rely on
- The order in which an individual witness
may be examined (Rules of Court):
a. Direct Examination by the proponent
➢ Examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the
issue
b. Cross Examination by the opponent
➢ Upon the termination of the
direct examination, the witness
may be cross-examined by the
adverse party as to any matters
stated in the direct examination,
or connected therewith, with
sufficient fullness and freedom
to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse,
and to elicit all important facts
bearing upon the issue
c. Re-direct Examination by the
proponent
➢ After the cross-examination of
the witness has been concluded,
he may be re-examined by the
party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given
during the cross-examination.
On re-direct examination,
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
➢ Upon the conclusion of the re-
direct examination, the adverse
2
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

party may re-cross-examine the - An argument that consists of exactly two

witness on matters stated in his premises and a conclusion
re-direct examination, an also on
such other matter as may be Deductive Arguments
allowed by the court in its - Two Types:
discretion 1. Valid
Dependence on Precedents ➢ Argument in which the
conclusion really does follow
Stare Decisis et non quieta movere necessarily from the premises
➢ Argument in which the
- From settled precedents, there must be no conclusion must be true if the
departure premises are true, no valid
• Once this Court has laid down a argument can have all true
principle of law as applicable to a premises and a false conclusion
certain state of facts, it would adhere 2. Invalid
to that principle and apply it to all ➢ Argument in which the
future cases in which the facts are conclusion really does not follow
substantially the same as in the necessarily from their premises
earlier controversy
Types of Syllogisms
1. Categorical
CHAPTER 3 • Composed of categorical statements
Deduction and Induction alone
➢ Statement that directly asserts
Inductive Reasoning something or states a fact
without any conditions
- Determine the facts of the case and to
2. Hypothetical
establish them through causal arguments,
• Include both categorical and
probability or scientific methods
hypothetical statements
- Try to show that their conclusions are
➢ A compound statement which
plausible or likely or probable to be true
contains a proposed or tentative
given the premise(s)
explanation
- Premises are intended to provide good
i. Consists of at least two
(but not conclusive) evidence for the
clauses connected by
truth of the conclusion
conjunctions, adverbs,
Note: The conclusion might turn out to be etc., which express the
false even though the premises are true relationship between the
classes as well as our
- Common Indicators: assent to it.
➢ Probably
➢ Likely Categorical Syllogisms
➢ Chances are
- Properties of a Categorical Statement:
➢ One would expect that
1. Quality
➢ It is plausible to suppose that
➢ The quality of the statement may
➢ It is reasonable to assume that
be affirmative or negative
Deductive Reasoning ➢ Negative qualifiers: no, not,
never, and none
- Determine whether the correct rules of ➢ Absence of indicators means that
laws were applied to the given facts or the statement is in the affirmative
whether the rules of evidence were 2. Quantity
properly applied in establishing the facts ➢ Either universal or particular
- Proves the truth of the conclusion beyond i. Universal
any doubt 1.1. When what is being
- Premises intend to guarantee the truth of denied or affirmed
the conclusion of the subject term is
- Common Indicators: its whole extension
➢ Certainly 1.2. Quantifiers:
➢ Definitely
➢ Absolutely all, every, each, no,
➢ Conclusively none
➢ It is logical to conclude that
ii. Particular
➢ This logically implies that
2.1. When what is being
➢ This entails that
affirmed or denied
➢ It must be the case that
of the subject is just
Syllogisms a part of its
extension
- A three-line argument 2.2. Quantifiers:

3
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
some, almost all,
most, several, few,
not all, many
Quantity of the Predicate
- Two Rules:
1. Predicate of an affirmative statement
is generally particular
2. The predicate of a negative statement
is always universal
Parts of a Categorical Syllogism
- Three kinds of terms:
1. Minor Term (S)
➢ The subject of the conclusion
➢ Also called the subject term
2. Major Term (P)
➢ The predicate of the conclusion
➢ Also called the predicate term
3. Middle Term (M)
➢ The term found in both premises
and serves to mediate between
the minor and the major terms
- Three kinds of statements:
1. Minor premise
➢ Premise which contains the
minor term
2. Major Premise
➢ The premise which contains the
major term
3. Conclusion
➢ The statement the premises
support
Rules for the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms
Rule 1:
- The syllogism must not contain two
negative premises
- Fallacy of exclusive premises is
committed when this rule is violated
Rule 2:
- There must be three pairs of univocal
terms
- Two types of terms:
• Equivocal
➢ A term that has different
meanings in its occurrences
• Univocal
➢ A term that has the same
meaning in different occurrences
- Fallacy of equivocation is committed
when this rule is violated
Rule 3:
- The middle term must be universal at
least once
- Fallacy of particular middle is
committed when this rule is violated
• Exception: Even if the middle term
is particular in both premises, but it
is quantified by “most” in both
premises and the conclusion is
quantified by “some”
Rule 4:
- If the term in the conclusion is universal,
the same term in the premise must also
be universal
- Fallacy of illicit minor is committed
when this rule is violated
Hypothetical Syllogisms
- A syllogism that contains a hypothetical
statement as one of its premises
- Three kinds:
1. Conditional syllogism
➢ A syllogism in which the major
premise is a conditional
statement
i. A compound statement
which asserts that the
then clause is true on
condition that the if
clause is true
➢ Symbolized by the following:
i. A- Antecedent
ii. C- Consequent
iii. ~ - negation of statement
iv. > - implies
v. – for therefore
2. Disjunctive syllogism
3. Conjunctive syllogism
Rules for Conditional Syllogisms
- Two valid forms of conditional
syllogisms:
1. Modus ponens
➢ When the minor premise affirms
the antecedent, the conclusion
must affirm the consequent
2. Modus tollens
➢ When the minor premise denies
the consequent, the conclusion
must deny the antecedent
- Fallacy of denying the antecedent
➢ The minor premise denies the
antecedent
- Fallacy of affirming the consequent
➢ The minor premise affirms the
consequent
Enthymemes
- An argument can be founded on a
syllogism although not all parts of the
syllogism can be expressed
- Kind of argument that is stated
incompletely, part being understood or
only in the mind
Polysyllogisms
- Piling one syllogism on top of another
- A series of syllogisms in which the
conclusion of one syllogism supplies a
premise of the nest syllogism
4
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5
Inductive Arguments Fallacy
- Arguments in which the premises are - A mistake of error in thinking and
intended to provide support, but not reasoning
conclusive evidence, for the conclusion - Two kinds:
1. Formal
Inductive Generalizations ➢ Those that may be identified
- An argument that relies on characteristics through mere inspection of the
of a sample population to make a claim form and structure of an
about the population as a whole argument
➢ Found only in deductive
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations arguments that have identifiable
forms
- Two important questions:
2. Informal
1. Is the sample large enough?
➢ Those that can be detected only
• Converse Accident through analysis of the content of
(Hasty Generalization) the argument
➢ Occurs when a person ➢ 3 categories:
erroneously creates a general i. Fallacies of ambiguity
rule from observing too few a. Committed because
cases of misuse of
2. Is the sample representative? language
• Random Sample b. Contains ambiguous
➢ One in which all members of the or vague language
target have an equal opportunity used to mislead
to be in the sample people
Note: Inductive generalizations should not ii. Fallacies of irrelevant
overstate their conclusions evidence
a. Occur because the
Analogical Arguments premises are not
logically relevant to
- Claim that certain similarities are
the conclusion
evidence that there is another similarity
b. Premises area
or similarities
psychologically
Analogy irrelevant, so the
conclusion may
- A comparison of things based on seem to follow from
similarities those things share the premises
although it does not
Analogical Reasoning
follow logically
- Three step process: iii. Fallacies of insufficient
1. Establish similarities between two evidence
cases a. Occur because the
2. Announce the rule of law embedded premises fail to
in the first case provide evidence
3. Apply the rule of law in the second strong enough to
case support the
- Acts as basis for circumstantial evidence conclusion
• Sufficient for conviction if:
Fallacies of Ambiguity
a. There is more than one
circumstance Equivocation
b. The facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven - Consists in leading an opponent to an
c. The combination of all the unwarranted conclusion by using a term
circumstances is such as to in its different senses and making it
produce a conviction beyond appear to have only one meaning
reasonable doubt - Ambiguity comes from changing
meanings of the word
Evaluating Analogical Arguments
Amphiboly
- Two Criterion
1. Relevance of similarities - Consists in presenting a claim or
2. Relevant dissimilarities argument whose meaning can be
interpreted in tow or more ways due to its
grammatical construction
- Ambiguity comes from the way the
sentence is constructed

5
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
- Typical grammatical errors:
a. Unclear pronoun reference
b. Elliptical construction
i. Where words are omitted but
supposedly understood
c. Unclear modifier
d. Careless use of only
e. Careless use of all
Improper Accent
- Consists in misleading people by placing
improper emphasis on a word, phrase, or
particular aspect of an issue or claim
- Also includes the distortion produced by
pulling a quoted passage out of context,
putting it in another context, and then
drawing a conclusion that is not drawn in
the original context
Vicious Abstraction
- Consists in misleading the people by
using vague or abstract terms
- Occurs when vague words are misused
➢ Misused when these words are
very significant in the premises
used to establish a conclusion
Composition
- Consists in wrongly inferring that what
holds true of the individuals
automatically holds true of the group
made up of those individuals
Division
- Consists in wrongly assuming that what
is true in general is true in particular
- Makes the assumption that a
characteristic of the whole is therefore a
characteristic of each parts
- Committed when one argues from the
attributes of a collection of elements to
the attributes of the elements themselves
Fallacies of Irrelevance
Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
- Ignores the issue by focusing on certain
personal characteristics of an opponent
- Two kinds:
A. Abusive
➢ Attacks the argument based on
the arguer’s reputation,
personality, or some personal
shortcoming
B. Circumstantial
➢ Defending one’s position by
accusing his or her critic or other
people of doing the same thing
➢ Also called tu quoque which
means “you’re another” or “you
yourself do it”
- Occurs when the argument moves from
in rem to an argument alleging
wrongness or improper conduct on the
party who has alleged wrongdoing on our
part
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to
Pity)
- Convinces the people by evoking
feelings of compassion and sympathy
when such feelings are not logically
relevant to the arguer’s conclusion
Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
- Consists in persuading others to accept a
position by using threat or pressure
instead of presenting evidence for one’s
view
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
- Persuading people by means of the
wording of one of its premises
- 4 Types:
A. Arguing in Circle
➢ States or assumes as a premise
the very thing that should be
proven in the conclusion
➢ The argument presupposes the
truth of its conclusion
B. Question-Begging Language
➢ Discussing an issue by means of
language that assumes a position
of the very question at issue, in
such a way as to direct the
listener to that same conclusion
➢ Prematurely assumes that a
matter that is or may be at issue
has already been settled
C. Complex Question
➢ Consists in asking a question in
which some presuppositions are
buried in that question
➢ Also called a loaded question
➢ More than one question is being
asked in what appears to be a
single question
D. Leading Question
➢ Consists in directing the
respondent to give a particular
answer to a question at issue by
the manner in which the question
is asked
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to the
Ages)
- Attempts to persuade others of a certain
belief by appealing to their feelings of
reverence or respect for some tradition,
instead of giving rational basis for such
belief
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to
Inappropriate Authority)
- Consists in persuading others by
appealing to people who command
respect or authority but do not have
legitimate authority in the matter at hand
• An authority in a particular field is
one who has sufficient knowledge of
the matters belonging to that field, is
6
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
qualified by training or ability to
draw appropriate inferences from
that knowledge, and is free from any
prejudices or conflicts of interest and
would prevent him or her from
formulating sound judgments
Accident
- Consists in applying a general rule to a
particular case when circumstances
suggest that an exception to the rule
should apply
- Occurs when general rules are applied to
special circumstances
• Exceptions to the hearsay rule:
➢ A dying declaration
➢ A statement against interest or a
statement of personal or family
history
• Applying the general hearsay rule to
these exceptions is to commit fallacy
of accident or dicto simpliciter
Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
- Consists in drawing a general or
universal conclusion from insufficient
particular case
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from
Ignorance)
- Consists in assuming that a particular
claim is true because its opposite cannot
be proven
- Using the absence of evidence against a
claim as justification that it is true or
using the absence of evidence for a claim
as evidence that it is false
False Evidence
- Arises when the premise of an argument
presents us with a choice between two
alternatives and assumes that they are
exhaustive when in fact they are not
- Derives from the failure to distinguish
contradictories from contraries
• Contradictories
➢ Exclude any gradation between
extremes
• Contraries
➢ Allow a number of gradations
between their extremes
CHAPTER 6
Rules of Collision
- Laws and rules should not be interpreted
in such a way that leads to unreasonable
or senseless consequences
- Interpretare et concordare legis legibus
est optimus interpretandii
• To interpret and to harmonize laws
with laws is the best method of
interpretation
Provisions vis-à-vis provisions
- Statute must be construed as a whole, and
attempts must be first made to reconcile
these conflicting provisions in order to
attain the intent of the law
- Ut magis valeat quam pereat
• Construction to be sought which
gives effect to the whole of the
statute -its very word
- Two essential principles of statutory
construction:
1. That a statute is to be read as a
whole
2. All efforts must be made in order
to harmonize seemingly
conflicting provisions
Laws vis-à-vis the Constitution
- Whenever a law is in conflict with the
Constitution, the latter prevails
Laws vis-à-vis Laws
- Where two statutes are of contrary tenor
or of different dates but are of equal
theoretical application to a particular
case, the case designed therefor specially
should prevail over the other
- Lex posteriori derogat priori
• A later statute takes away the effect
of a prior one
- Between a common law principle and a
statutory provision, the latter must
prevail in this jurisdiction
- Interpretare et concordare legibus est
optimus interpretandi
• The best method of interpretation is
that which makes laws consistent
with other laws
- Legis posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant
• Later laws abrogate earlier, contrary
ones
• A later law repeals an earlier one
because it is the later legislative will
General laws vis-à-vis Special Laws
- Generalia specialibus non derogant
• A general law does not nullify a
specific or special law
- Generalis clausula non porrigitur ad ea
quae antea specialiter sunt comprehensa
• A general clause does not extend to
those things which are previously
provided for specially
- If both statutes are irreconcilable, the
general statute must give way to the
special or particular provisions as an
exception to the general provisions
Laws vis-à-vis Ordinances
- Ordinance
• Local legislative measure passed by
the local legislative body of a local
government unit
• Power to legislate is delegated to
them by the Local Government Code
7
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

• Substantive requirements: 4. The evidence must be substantial.

1. Must not contravene the Substantial evidence means such
Constitution or any statute reasonable evidence as a reasonable
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive mind accept as adequate to support a
3. Must not be partial or conclusion;
discriminatory 5. The decision must be based on the
4. Must not prohibit but may evidence presented at the hearing, or
regulate trade at least contained in the record and
5. Must be general and consistent disclosed to the parties affected;
with public policy 6. The tribunal or body or any of its
6. Must not be unreasonable judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the law
Rules of Interpretation and Construction and facts of the controversy, and not
- Interpretation simply accept the views of a
• Refers to how a law or a provision subordinate;
thereof is to be properly applied 7. The Board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its
• Refers to the drawing of the true
decision in such manner that the
nature, meaning, and intent of the
parties to the proceeding can know
law through an examination of its
the various issues involved, and the
provisions
reason for the decision rendered.
- Construction
• Process of using tools, aids, Rules of Procedure
references extant from the law in
order to ascertain its nature, - Process of how a litigant would protect
meaning, and intent his right through the intervention of the
- Verba legis court or any other administrative body
• Word of the law - Mere tools designed to facilitate the
• Plain meaning rule attainment of justice
- 2 Aids: - Must be faithfully followed in the
1. Extrinsic Aids absence of persuasive reason to deviate
➢ Used in construction therefrom
2. Intrinsic Aids Note: Administrative rules of procedure are
➢ Used in interpretation generally given a liberal construction
- Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda
• In doubtful matters the more liberal
(constructions) are to be preferred
Rules of Judgment
- Judicial Power
• The power to hear and decide cases
pending between parties who have
the right to sue and be sued in the
courts of law and equity
- Requisites to power of judicial review:
1. An actual and appropriate case and
controversy exists
2. A personal and substantial interest of the
party raising the constitutional question
3. The exercise of judicial review is pleaded
at the earliest opportunity
4. The constitutional question raised is the
very lis mota of the case
- Justiciable controversy
• Involves a definite and concrete
dispute touching on the legal
relations of the parties having
adverse legal interest
- Cardinal requirements of due process in
administrative proceedings:
1. The right to a hearing, which
includes the right to present one’s
case and submit evidence in support
thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to
support itself;