Argumentum a contrario.

Negative-Opposite Doctrine: what is expressed puts an end to that which is

implied.
In logic, an argumentum a contrario (Latin: "appeal from the contrary" or
"argument based on the contrary") denotes any proposition that is argued to
be correct because it is not disproven by a certain case. It is the opposite of
the analogy. Arguments a contrario are often used in the legal system as a
way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws.
Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments a contrario are not
by definition fallacies.

Examples
" 123 of the X-Law says that green cars need to have blue tires. As such,
red cars don't have to have blue tires."
Here the argument is based on the fact that red cars are not green cars and
as such 123 of the X-Law cannot be applied to them. This requires the law
to be interpreted to determine which solution would have been desired if the
lawmaker had considered red cars. In this case it's probably safe to assume
that they only wanted to regulate green cars and not regulate cars of other
colors.
On the other hand, this example:
" 456 of the Y-Law says that it's irrelevant whether a message is sent by
letter or by telegraph. As such, messages cannot be sent by fax
machines."
As with the example above, the argument is based on the fact that the law
does not mention fax machines and they must therefore not be used. Here
the interpretation that the lawmaker consciously did not mention fax
machines is less valid than the assumption that fax machines did not exist at
this time and that, were the law passed today, they would have been
mentioned. Here the argument a contrario is used fallaciously since it places
the letter of the law above its intent

______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

Negative-opposite doctrine

Argumentum a contrario- what is expressed puts an end to what is

implied.
Chung Fook v. White
STATUTE: case exempts the wife of a naturalized American from
detention, for treatment in a hospital, who is afflicted with a contagious
disease.
HELD: Court denied petition for writ of habeas corpus (filed by the
native-born American citizen on behalf of wife detained in hospital),
court resorted to negative-opposite doctrine, stating that statute
plainly relates to wife of a naturalized citizen & cannot interpolate
native-born citizen.
Courts application results to injustice (as should not discriminate
against native-born citizens), which is not intent of law, should have
used doctrine of necessary implication.
Application of expression unius rule

Generally used in construction of statutes granting powers,

creating rights and remedies, restricting common rights, imposing
rights & forfeitures, as well as statutes strictly construed.
Acosta v. Flor
STATUTE: specifically designates the persons who may bring actions
for quo warranto, excludes others from bringing such actions.
Escribano v. Avila
STATUTE: for libel, preliminary investigations of criminal actions for
written defamation xxx shall be conducted by the city fiscal of province
or city or by municipal court of city or capital of the province where
such actions may be instituted precludes all other municipal courts
from conducting such preliminary investigations
Peo. v. Lantin
STATUTE: crimes which cannot be prosecuted de oficio namely
adultery, concubinage, seduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness;
crimes such as slander can be prosecuted de oficio.
Vera v. Fernandez
STATUTE: All claims for money against the decedent, arising from
contracts, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or
contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last
sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against decedent,
must be filled within the time limit of the notice, otherwise barred
forever.

HELD: The taxes due to the government, not being mentioned in the
rule are excluded from the operation of the rule.
Mendenilla v. Omandia
STATUTE: changed the form of government of a municipality into a
city provides that the incumbent mayor, vice-mayor and members of
the municipal board shall continue in office until the expiration of their
terms.
HELD: all other municipal offices are abolished.
Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.

STATUTE: Legislature deliberately selected a particular method of

giving notice, as when a co-owner is given the right of legal
redemption within 30 days from notice in writing by the vendor in case
the other co-owner sells his share is the co-owned property,

HELD: the method of giving notice must be deemed excusive & a

notice sent by vendee is ineffective.
Villanueva v. City of Iloilo

STATUTE: Local Autonomy Act, local governments are given broad

powers to tax everything, except those which are specifically
mentioned therein. If a subject matter does not come within the
exceptions, an ordinance imposing a tax on such subject matter is
deemed to come within the broad taxing power, exception firmat
regulam in casibus non exceptis.
Samson v. Court of Appeals

Where the law provides that positions in the government belong to

the competitive service, except those declared by law to be in the
noncompetitive service and those which are policy-determining,
primarily confidential or highly technical in nature and enumerates
those in the noncompetitive as including SECRETARIES OF GOVERNORS
AND MAYORS, the clear intent is that assistant secretaries of governors
and mayors fall under the competitive service, for by making an
enumeration, the legislature is presumed to have intended to exclude
those not enumerated, for otherwise it would have included them in
the enumeration
Firman General Insurance Corp. v. CA
FACTS: The insurance company disclaimed liability since death
resulting from murder was impliedly excluded in the insurance policy
as the cause of death is not accidental but rather a deliberate and

intentional act, excluded by the very nature of a personal accident

insurance.
ISSUE: WN the insurance company is still liable for the injury suffered
by the insured resulting from intentional act.
HELD: Yes. The principle expresssio unius est exclusio - the mention
of one thing implies the exclusion of the other thing - not having been
expressly included in the enumeration of circumstances that would
negate liability in said insurance policy cannot be considered by
implication to discharge the petitioner insurance company to include
death resulting from murder or assault among the prohibited risks lead
inevitably to the conclusion that it did not intend to limit or exempt
itself from liability for such death
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos
ISSUE: whether the solicitation for religious purposes, i.e., renovation
of church without securing permit fro Department of Social Services, is
a violation of PD 1564, making it a criminal offense for a person to
solicit or receive contributions for charitable or public welfare
purposes.
HELD: No. Charitable and religious specifically enumerated only goes
to show that the framers of the law in question never intended to
include solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage.
Limitations of the rule
1.
It is not a rule of law, but merely a tool in statutory construction
2.
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius, no more than auxiliary rule
of interpretation to be ignored where other circumstances indicate that
the enumeration was not intended to be exclusive.
3.
Does not apply where enumeration is by way of example or to
remove doubts only.
Gomez v. Ventura

ISSUE: whether the prescription by a physician of opium for a

patient whose physical condition did not require the use of such drug
constitutes unprofessional conduct as to justify revocation of
physicians license to practice

HELD: Still liable! Rule of expressio unius not applicable.

Court said, I cannot be seriously contended that aside from the five
examples specified, there can be no other conduct of a physician
deemed unprofessional. Nor can it be convincingly argued that the
legislature intended to wipe out all other forms of unprofessional
conduct therefore deemed grounds for revocation of licenses

4.
Does not apply when in case a statute appears upon its face to
limit the operation of its provision to particular persons or things
enumerating them, but no reason exists why other persons or things
not so enumerated should not have been included and manifest
injustice will follow by not including them.
5.
If it will result in incongruities or a violation of the equal protection
clause of the Constitution.
6.
If adherence thereto would cause inconvenience, hardship and
injury to the public interest.