GO, JANE LIZZETTE RUBIS
Legal Technique and Logic
(Thursday – 7:30PM-9:30PM)
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
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 and bad reasoning.
- Probes into the fundamental concepts
of arguments, inference, truth, falsity
and validity
Psychology vs. Logic
Psychology is primarily concerned with how
people reason and looks for patterns of
behaviour, speech and neurological activity,
whereas Logic studies the principles of good
reasoning.
Legal reasoning – what we use when we apply
laws, rules and regulations to particular facts
and cases; what we use to interpret the
Constitution and laws; what we use to evaluate
evidence and make legal judgments to render
legal decisions.
It is a kind of reasoning that is expressed
through arguments.
Arguments – is a claim put forward and
defended with reasons.
It is a group of statements in which one
statement is claimed to be true on the basis of
another statement/s.
2 Basic Elements in an Argument:
1. Conclusion – The statement claimed to be
true. The following are the common
conclusion indicators (therefore, so, thus,
hence)
2. Premise – The statement that serves as a
basis to support the conclusion. The
following are some of the common premise
indicators (because, since, for, inasmuch as)
Note: An argument ALWAYS has a conclusion
and a premise. Absence of one is not an
argument.
To analyze the structure and contents of
arguments, one must determine the following:
a. What are the issues and problems being
raised;
b. What is the chief claim of the argument;
c. What are the bases and premises
advanced to support the claim; and
d. What are the crucial assumptions
implicit in one’s reasoning.
1
Distinction of Argument from the following:
1. Explanation – attempt to show WHY
something is the case (explanation of
FACTS), while argument is an attempt to
show THAT something is the case
(justification of a claim)
2. Unsupported opinions – statements about
what the speaker happens to believe. Can
only be part of an argument provided that
they support other claims.
3. Conditional statement – statements
that contain if-then relationship.
Components of Legal Reasoning
1. ISSUE – is 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?)
- In law, it is a legal matter, not just any
controversial question.
- The argument is directed at the issue
and the relevance of the premises
depends on the issue.
- Topic is different from Issue
2. RULE – (what legal rules govern the
issue?) Three parts of a rule:
a) a set of elements, collectively called
a test;
b) a result that occurs when all the
elements are present (and the test is
satisfied)
c) a causal term that determines
whether the result is mandatory,
prohibitory, discretionary or
declaratory.
Forms of rules – statute, ordinance,
cases or principles that courts have
already decided (stare decisis)
3. FACT – Facts that fit all the elements of
the rule – both sides of the case (what are
the facts that are relevant to the rule
cited?)
4. ANALYSIS – This part shows the
linkage between the rules and the facts
presented to establish the claim in the
argument. (How applicable are the facts
to the said rule?)
5. CONCLUSION – The ultimate end of a
legal argument. (What is the implication
of applying the rule to the given facts?)
Two (2) General Criteria to distinguish
correct legal reasoning
1. TRUTH – legal reasoning is grounded
on truth and genuine facts
2. LOGIC – premises must not only factual
but with significant/logical connection
with conclusion
Two main processes involved in legal
reasoning:
 a. Presentation of facts (which pertains
to the question of truth); and
b. Inference (legal claim or judgment
from laws and facts)
CHAPTER 2: FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING
Rules of Court – issuance of the High Court
that defines and governs the conduct of
proceedings before all courts of the land
Common Fundamental Concepts
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.
- Rule: burden of proof lies with the
person who alleges the truth of his
claim
In civil cases:
- plaintiff has the burden of proving
material allegations of the complaint
which are denied by the answer,
- defendant has the burden of proving
material allegations in his answer
In administrative proceedings:
- respondent has the burden of proving
that the respondent committed the acts
complained of
“Equipoise doctrine” – when the evidence
of both parties are evenly balanced or there is
doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the decision should be
against the party who has the burden of
proof.
2. Evidence – means sanctioned by the Rules of
Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact
Best evidence rule (Rule 130, Sec.3, Revised
Rules of Civil Procedures) –applies only
when the content of the document is the
subject of the inquiry
3. Admissibility and Relevance
Admissibility- evidence is deemed admissible
if it relevant to the issue and not excluded by
the provision of law or the Rules of Court
Relevance – evidence is deemed relevant if it
has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief of existence or not.
4. Testimony of Witnesses – generally
confined to personal knowledge and not
hearsay
Hearsay Rule – a witness can only testify to
those facts which come from his personal
knowledge, and not to those he merely
2
learned from others. Exception to the rule:
entries in official records
5. Expert Testimony – statements made by
individuals who are considered as experts in
a particular field.
6. Examination – conducted in the trial courts
Order of examination of individual witness
under Rules of Court:
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 –
cross examination of witness by the
adverse party to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and to elicit all important
facts in the issue
c. Re-direct examination by the
proponent – re-examination of
witness by the party calling him to
explain or supplement his answers
during the cross-examination.
d. Re-cross-examination by the
opponent – re-cross-examination of
witness by the adverse party on
matters stated in his re-direct
examination
7. Dependence on Precedents
Precedents – refers to issues that have
been laid to rest by previous judicial
decisions.
“Stare decisis et non quieta movere”
(Stand by the decisions and disturb not
what is settled) – this doctrine provides
that once the Court has laid down a
principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it would adhere to that
principle and apply it to all future cases
in which the facts are substantially the
same as in the earlier controversy
“Legis interpretado legis vim obtinet”
(the interpretation placed upon the
written law by a competent court has the
force of law)
CHAPTER 3: DEDUCTIVE REASONING
IN LAW
Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning – when the premises
intend to guarantee the truth of the
conclusion (particular premises to general
conclusion)
 Inductive reasoning – when the premises are Kinds of terms:
intended to provide good, but not conclusive, 1. Minor term – the subject of the
evidence for the truth of the conclusion conclusion (subject term)
(general premises to particular conclusion) 2. Major term – predicate of the
conclusion (predicate term)
Common Deductive Common Inductive 3. Middle term – the term found in both
indicators: indicators: premises and serves to mediate
Certainly Probably between the minor and major terms.
definitely Likely
absolutely Chances are Kinds of Statements in Categorical
conclusively One would expect Syllogism:
that 1. Minor premise – the premise which
it is logical to It is plausible to contains the minor term
conclude that suppose that 2. Major premise – the premise which
this logically implies It is reasonable to contains the major term
that assume that 3. Conclusion – the statement the
this entails that premises support
It must be the case
Rules for the Validity of Categorical
that
Syllogism:
Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain
Syllogisms – is a three-line argument that
two negative premises
consists of exactly two premises and a
conclusion (what is true of the universal if
Fallacy of exclusive premises – both
true of the particular)
premises are negative and the middle
term fails to serve its function to
Invalid deductive arguments – when the
mediate the major and minor terms
conclusion does not follow from the premises
Rule 2: There must be three pairs of
Valid deductive argument – in which the
univocal terms
conclusion really does follow from the premises
presented.
Univocal terms – terms having the
same meaning in different
Types of Syllogisms
occurrences
1. Categorical – syllogism composed of
Equivocal terms – terms having
categorical statements alone
different meanings in different
 Categorical Statement – a statement that
occurrences
directly asserts something or states a fact
without any conditions.
Fallacy of equivocation – when the
terms used in the premises have
Properties of Categorical Statement:
different meanings
a. Quality – may be affirmative or
negative
Rule 3: The middle term must be
 Negative terms – “no”, “not”,
universal at least once.
“none”, “never”
b. Quantity – either universal (what is
Fallacy of particular middle – when the
being affirmed or denied of the subject
middle term fails to fulfill its function of
term is its whole extension) or
uniting or separating the minor and major
particular (what is being affirmed or
term because the middle term is particular
denied of the subject term is just part
in both premises
of its extension)
Exception to the rule: when the middle
term is both quantified by the term “most”
Universal Particular and the conclusion is quantified by the
Quantifier Quantifier term “some”
All Some
Every Almost all Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is
Each Most universal, the same term in the premise
No Several must also be universal
none Few
Not all Fallacy of illicit minor/major – when the
many conclusion is universal while the premise
is in particular

3

2. Hypothetical – syllogism that includes both
categorical and hypothetical statements
 Hypothetical statement – compound
statement which contains a proposed or
tentative explanation.
 Compound statement – consists of at
least two clauses connected by
conjunctions, adverbs, etc., which express
the relationship between the classes as
well as our assent to it.
 Clauses – simple statements or statements
that contain one subject and predicate.
Three kinds of Hypothetical Syllogisms:
a. Conditional Syllogism – a syllogism
in which the major premise is a
conditional statement
Conditional Statement – a
compound statement which asserts
that one member (then clause
“antecedent”) is true on condition
that the other member (if clause
“consequent”) is true.
The truth of the consequent follows
upon the fulfilment of the condition in
the antecedent
Rules for Conditional Syllogism:
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 –
when the minor premise denies the
antecedent
Fallacy of affirming the consequent
– when the minor premise affirms the
consequent
Enthymeme – argument that is stated
incompletely for those parts missing
is being understood
Polysyllogism – series of syllogisms
in which the conclusion of one
syllogism supplies a premise of the
next syllogism.
b. Disjunctive Syllogism
c. Conjunctive Syllogism
4
CHAPTER 4: INDUCTIVE REASONING IN
LAW
Inductive arguments – are arguments in which
the premises are intended to provide support, but
not conclusive evidence, for the conclusion
Inductive Generalization – an argument that
relies on characteristics of a sample population
to make a claim about the population as a whole
Two questions to evaluate inductive
generalizations:
a. Is the sample large enough?
Hasty Generalization/ Converse
Accident – when a person erroneously
creates a general rule from observing too
few cases
b. Is the sample representative?
Random Sample – one which all
members of the target have an equal
opportunity to be in the sample
Analogical Arguments
Analogy – a comparison of things based on
similarities those things share
- One-to-one comparison that require no
generalizations or reliance on
universal rules.
- Process of reasoning from particular
to particular
Three step process in analogical reasoning:
1. Establish similarities between two cases
2. Announce the rule of law embedded in
the first case
3. Apply the rule of the law to the second
case
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for the
conviction of the following:
1. There is more than 1 circumstance
2. The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven
3. The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
Fallacy of false analogy – comparing two or
more things that are not really comparable
Criteria in evaluating analogical argument:
Relevance of similarities
CHAPTER 5: FALLACIES IN LEGAL
REASONING
Fallacy – not a false belief but a mistake or
error in the thinking or reasoning

Two groups of Fallacies:
1. Formal Fallacies – those that may be
identified through mere inspection of the form
and structure of an argument.
- Found only in deductive arguments
2. Informal Fallacies – those that can be
detected only through analysis of the context
of the argument.
Three categories of informal fallacies:
a. Fallacies of ambiguity – committed
when there is misuse of language
b. Fallacies of irrelevant evidence –
committed when the premises are not
logically relevant with the conclusion
c. Fallacies of insufficient evidence –
committed when the premises fail to
provide evidence strong enough to support
the conclusion
A. Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation – fallacy that leads an
opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by
using a term in its different sense and
making it appear to have only one
meaning.
2. Amphiboly – fallacy which consists of
presenting a claim or argument whose
meaning can be interpreted in two or more
ways due to its grammatical construction
(ambiguity comes from the way the
sentence is constructed)
3. Improper accent – fallacy which consists
of misleading people by placing improper
emphasis on a word, phrase or particular
aspect of an issue or claim.
4. Vicious abstraction – fallacy which
consists of misleading the people by using
vague or abstract terms.
5. Composition – fallacy which consists of
wrongly inferring that what holds true of
the individuals automatically holds true of
the group that made up those individuals
6. Division – fallacy which consists of
wrongly assuming that what is true in
general is true in particular
B. Fallacies of Irrelevance
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal
Attack) – fallacy which ignores the issue
by focusing on certain characteristics of an
opponent
- The argument attacks the person and
not the issue asserted
2 kinds of Argumentum Ad Hominem:
A. Abusive argumentum ad hominem –
this fallacy attacks the argument based
on the arguer’s reputation, personality
or personal shortcomings.
5
B. Circumstantial argumentum ad
hominem (tu quoque)– this fallacy
consists in defending one’s position by
accusing his or her critic or other
people of doing the same thing.
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal
to Pity) – this fallacy convinces the people
by evoking feelings of compassion and
sympathy when such feelings are not
logically relevant to the arguer’s conclusion
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to
Force) – this fallacy consists in persuading
others to accept a position by using threat or
pressure instead of presenting evidence for
one’s view.
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) –
where arguments are designed to persuade
people by means of the wording of one of its
premises.
Types of Petitio Principii:
a. Arguing in Circle – this fallacy assumes
as a premise the very thing that should be
proven in the conclusion (Make use of
the conclusion to serve as its premise)
b. Question-Begging Language – this
fallacy consists in discussing an issue by
means of language that assumes a
position of the very question of issue, in
such a way as to direct the listener to that
same conclusion
c. Complex Question (loaded question)–
this fallacy consists in asking a question
in which some presuppositions are buried
in that question
d. Leading Questions – this fallacy
consists in directing the respondent to
give a particular answer to a question at
issue by the manner in which the
question is asked.
C. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
1. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to the
Ages) – this fallacy 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.
2. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to
Inappropriate Authority) – this fallacy
consists in persuading others by appealing to
people who command respect or authority
but do not have legitimate authority in the
matter at hand.
3. Accident – this fallacy consists in applying a
general rule to a particular case when
circumstances suggest that an exception to
the rule should apply.
4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
– this fallacy consists in drawing a general or
universal conclusion from insufficient
particular case. (Opposite of the fallacy of
accident)
5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing
from Ignorance) – this fallacy 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.
6. False Dilemma – this fallacy 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.
CHAPTER 6: RULES OF LEGAL
REASONING
Rules of Collision
When two laws are incompatible with each
other, the task of the judiciary is to reconcile or
harmonize them with each other and if not,
uphold one over the other. (Interpretare et
concordare legis legibus est optimus
interpretandi)
Provisions vis-a-vis Provisions
If in a statute, conflicting clauses and provisions
may arise, the statute must be construed as a
whole and attempts must first be made to
reconcile these conflicting provisions in order to
attain the intent of the law. (Ut magis valeat
quam pereat)
Where there is in the same statue a particular
enactment and a general one, the particular
enactment must be operative and the general one
must be taken to affect only within its general
language as are not within the provisions of the
particular enactment.
Where there are two interpretations, the one
valid will be adopted.
Two essential principles in Statutory
Construction: 1) a statute must be read as a
whole, and 2) all efforts must be made in
order to harmonize seemingly conflicting
provisions
Laws vis-a-vis the Constitution
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.
Every statute must be so construed and
harmonized with other statutes as to form a
uniform system of jurisprudence.
6
An amended act is ordinarily to be construed as
if the original statute has been repealed and a
new and independent act in the amended form
had been adopted.
Interpretare et concordare legibus est
optimus interpretandi – the best method of
interpretation is that which makes laws
consistent with other laws.
- Courts should harmonize the
conflicting statutes first, if possible,
instead of declaring them invalid.
Leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant
– a later law repeals an earlier one because it is
the later legislative will. Lawmakers are
presumed to know the old law and they intended
to change it.
A law may be repealed either 1) expressly
(categorical declaration that the law is revoked
and abrogated by another) or 2) impliedly (when
the provision of a more recent law cannot be
reasonably reconciled with the previous one)
Implied repeals are not favoured. They must
have been clearly and unmistakably intended by
the legislature. The test is whether the
subsequent law encompasses entirely the subject
matter of the former law and they cannot be
logically reconciled.
General Laws vis-a-vis Special Laws
Generalia specialibus non derogant – “the
provisions of a general statute must yield to
those of a special one” (Rule of Implied
exception) – When a statute treats a subject
matter in general terms and another treats a part
thereof in particularly detailed manner, the
specific provisions must be preferred over the
general provisions
Generalis clausula non porrigitur ad ea quae
antea specialiter sunt comprehensa – “A
general clause does not extend to those things
that previously have been comprehended in a
special way.” – When both statutes are
irreconcilable, the general statute must give way
to the special or particular provisions as an
exception to general provisions.
Basic rule in statutory construction:
a. A special provision or law prevails over
a general one.
b. S subsequent general law does not
repeal a prior special law on the same
subject matter unless it clearly appears
that the legislature has intended that the
 general act repeal or modify the earlier
special law.
c. The special law and the general law
must stand together, one as the
particular subject and the one is for the
general provisions.
Laws vis-a-vis Ordinances
Ordinance – local legislative measure passed by
the local legislative body of a local government
unit.
Examples of Local Legislative Bodies:
Sanguniang Panlunsod and Sanguniang
Panlalawigan.
Power to legislate – delegated by Local
Government Code
Test of Valid Ordinance
1. It must be within the corporate powers of the
local government unit to enact and passed
according to the procedure prescribed by law
2. It must also conform to the following
substantive requirements:
a. Must not contravene the
Constitution or any statute
b. Must not be unfair or oppressive
c. Must not be partial or
discriminatory
d. Must not prohibit but regulate
trade
e. Must be general and consistent
with public policy
f. Must not be unreasonable
Basic Rule (Hierarchy of Laws):
1. In case of conflict between an
administrative order and the provisions
of the Constitution, the latter prevails.
2. A statute is superior to an administrative
directive and the former cannot be
repealed or amended by the latter
3. In case of conflict between statute and
ordinance – statute prevails
4. In case of discrepancy between basic
law and a rule or regulation to
implement such law– the basic law
prevails for the rule cannot go beyond
the terms of the law
Rules of Interpretation and Construction
Interpretation – refers to how a law or a
provision is to be properly applied.
Basic rule:
1. Verba Legis (Word of the Law) – “Plain
meaning rule” - When the language of
the law is clear, no need for
interpretation or construction, only
7
application of the law. The fundamental
duty of the court is to apply the law.
2. When the law admits two or more
interpretation or ambiguous, interpret
first the law using intrinsic aids before
construction
3. It is only when the process of
interpretation failes or inadequate one
can proceed to construction of the law
Interpretation vs Construction
Interpretation – refers to the drawing of the
true nature, meaning and intent of the law
through an examination of its provisions or
intrinsic aids
Construction – process of using tools, aid,
references extant from the law or extrinsic aids
in order to ascertain its nature, meaning and
intent.
Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda “In
doubtful cases, the more favorable constructions
are always to be preferred.” – Words are
presumed to have been employed by the
lawmaker in their ordinary and common use and
acceptation
Rules of Judgment
Judicial Power – is the power of the courts to
hear and decide causes pending between parties
who have the right to sue and be sued in the
courts of law and equity.
- Duty of the judiciary to settle actual
controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government
- Judicial power is vested in one
Supreme Court and such lower courts
as may be established by law.
- Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy -
Courts are vested with the power to
annul acts of either the legislative or
the executive or of both when not
conformable to the fundamental law.
- Doctrine of Separation of Powers –
the 3 branches of government have
separate and distinct powers mandated
by the Constitution
Power of Judicial Review – power of the courts
to declare any law, treaties, orders, contracts, or
regulations unconstitutional
Requisites:
1. An actual and appropriate case and
controversy exists
 2. A personal and substantial interest of the must be faithfully followed in the absence of
party raising the constitutional question persuasive reason to deviate therefrom
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:
a. There must be a right to a hearing,
which includes the right to present one’s
case and submit evidence in support
thereof
b. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
c. The decision must have some basis to
support itself
d. The evidence must be substantial
e. The decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected
f. The tribunal or body or any of its judges
must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and the facts of
the controversy, and not simply accept
views of a subordinate
g. The board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner as would
allow the parties to know the various
issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered.

Ambiguity – condition of admitting two or more

meanings, of being understood in more than one
way, or referring to two or more things at the
same time.

Basic Rules:
1. If the statute is ambiguous, the Court is
called upon to interpret the law
according to its true intent
2. Courts cannot assume some purpose in
no way expressed and then construe the
statute to accomplish this supposed
intention

Rules of Procedure

Rules of procedure – refers to the process of

how a litigant would protect his right through the
intervention of the court or any other
administrative body

Administrative rules of procedure are generally

given a liberal construction. Rules of procedure