Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Logic Chapters 1 and 2 - Report
Legal Logic Chapters 1 and 2 - Report
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
LOGIC b) What is the chief claim of the argument?
c) What are the bases and premises advanced to support
What is logic? the claim?
d) What are the crucial assumptions implicit in ones
Logic is the study of principles and methods of good reasoning?
reasoning. It is a science of reasoning which aims to
determine and lay down the criteria of good (correct) What are common conclusion indicators?
reasoning and bad (incorrect) reasoning. It probes into
the fundamental concepts of argument, inference, Therefore, so, thus, hence
truth, falsity and validity, among others.
What are common premise indicators?
What is the importance of logic?
Because, since for, inasmuch as
It is by means of logic that we clarify our ideas, assess
the acceptability of the claims and beliefs we What if there is no indicator?
encounter, defend and justify our assertions and
statements, and make rational and sound decisions. There is an argument even without indicators as long
as there is an element of conclusion and premise.
LEGAL REASONING
RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
What is legal reasoning?
How to distinguish arguments from explanation?
Legal reasoning is what we use when we apply laws,
rules, and regulations to particular facts and cases; it Argument - Is it the speakers intent to prove or
is what we use when we interpret constitutions and establish that something is the case that is, to
statutes, when we balance fundamental principles and provide reasons or evidence for accepting a claim as
policies and when we evaluate evidences, and make true.
judgments to render legal decisions.
Example: Any law that prohibits people from
Why do we need to study legal logic? expressing their views is unconstitutional because our
constitution guarantees the freedom of speech
Simply because the law profession relies so much on
sound reasoning and valid argumentation in order to Explanation - Is it the speakers intent to explain why
justify a claim, defend a proposition, assess the something is the case that is, to offer an account of
strength of evidences and render a judicious decision. why some event has occurred or why something is the
way it is?
ARGUMENT AS AN EXPRESSION OF REASONING Example: Hubert Webb and company were acquitted
by the Supreme Court because the court found
What is an argument in logic and its elements? inherent inconsistencies in the evidences provided by
the prosecution.
It is a group of statements in which one statement is
claimed to be true called conclusion, the first element, What are not arguments?
and the statement that serves as the basis or support
of the conclusion called premise, the second element. Unsupported opinions (statements of belief or opinion
Without any element of premise or conclusion there is are statements about what a speaker or writer
no argument. happens to believe)
What are the categories of argument in logic? Conditional Statements. Example: If the Philippines
adopts a parliamentary government, then we will not
a) Logical or illogical elect a President anymore.
b) Valid or Invalid
c) Sound or unsound There is an argument if example: We will not elect a
President anymore because the Philippines adopted a
What are the structure and content of an argument? parliamentary government.
1
REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
COMPONENTS OF LEGAL REASONING reckless conduct as well as an outrageous conduct.
Analysis requires taking into account the basis when
What the components of Legal Reasoning? one could say the act is reckless or outrageous.
The components of legal reasoning are facts, issue, What is the importance of knowing all of these
ruling, analysis, and conclusion. components?
What is the definition of all the components of legal These are essential components that must be present
reasoning, as mentioned in the book? Can you also in a legal argument for it to be successfully advanced.
give example in each component?
a) Fact - Also called as material facts. These are facts EVALUATING LEGAL REASONING
that fit the elements of the rule or decision. The rule
would be satisfied if the facts of the present case cover What criteria can we use to distinguish correct from
all the elements of the rule. incorrect logical reasoning?
Example: Regarding the International Infliction of There are two general criteria these are Truth and
Emotional Distress (IEED) case, an ex-boyfriend calls Logic.
an ex-girlfriend several times in the middle of the night
to harass her and this causes her severe emotional How can these general criteria be explained?
distress.
It can be explained by looking at the two main process
b) Issue - Any matter of controversy or uncertainty. It is involved in legal reasoning. First, presentation of facts
a point in dispute, in doubt, in question, or simply up which pertains to the question of truth. Second,
for discussion or consideration. As such, it is always inference which pertains to the question of logic.
formulated in an interrogative sentence.
Can you further elaborate the processes?
Example: Is the accused guilty of online defamation?
Does the defendants conduct constitute an intentional a) Question of truth: pertains to the question, are the
infliction of emotional harm? premises provided in the argument true or acceptable?
If the premises that are meant to establish the truth of
c) Rule - These are statute, ordinance, or stare decisis the legal claim (conclusion) is not questionable, then
principle. the conclusion is not questionable.
Example: Rule on Violence against women and b) Question of logic: pertains to the question, is the
children - Occurred if a person acted against a women argument correct o logical? Does the conclusion of the
who is his wife, former wife, or against a women argument logically follow from its premises? The
whom the person has or had a sexual of dating premises of the argument must not only be factual but
relationship, or with a child, which result in physical, the connection of the premises to the conclusion must
sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic be logically coherent.
abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. What is logically coherent?
d) Decision - It is an ultimate end of a legal argument. The movement from the facts, to the analysis, and to
It is what the facts, the rules, and the analysis of the the main claim must be valid.
case amount to.
2
REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
Who carries the Burden of Proof? execution, the best evidence rule does not apply
and testimonial evidence is admissible.
The rule is that the burden of proof lies upon him who
asserts it not upon who denies it since he who denies b) Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise
it cannot produce any proof of it. admissible without need to account for original.
When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced No. It must proceed not only from the mouth of a
or there is doubt on which side the evidence credible witness but must be credible in itself as to
preponderates, the decision should be against the hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and
party with the burden of proof common experience of mankind.
3
REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Note, however, that after the examination of a witness
What is Expert Testimony? by the both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The
Expert Testimony refers to statements made by court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as
individuals who are considered as experts in a the interests of justice may require.
particular field.
Can a witness be impeached?
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
A witness may be impeached by the party against
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is
whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by
shown to possess, may be received in evidence
evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty,
(Section 49, Rule 130).
or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made
other statements inconsistent with his present
A published treatise, periodical, or pamphlet on a
testimony, but not by the evidence of particular
subject of history, law, science or art is admissible as
wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if:
examination of the witness, or the record of the
a) the court takes judicial notice; or b) a witness
judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.
expert in the subject testifies; that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical, or pamphlet is
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the
he has made at other times statements inconsistent
subject (Section 46, Rule 130).
with his present testimony, the statements must be
related to him, with the circumstances of the times
EXAMINATION and places and the persons present, and he must be
asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
What is the order of examination of witnesses? allowed to explain them. If the statements be in
writing they must be shown to the witness before any
The order in which an individual witness may be questions is put to him concerning them.
examined is as follows:
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS
1) Direct examination by the proponent -
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party What is stare decisis?
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue;
It is the general rule that, when a point has been
2) Cross-examination by the opponent - Upon settled by a decision, it becomes a precedent which
termination of the direct examination, the witness may should be followed in subsequent cases before the
be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any same court. The rule is based wholly on policy, in the
matters stated in the direct examination, or connected interest of uniformity and certainty of the law, but is
therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test frequently departed from. In our very own jurisdiction,
his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from the Civil Code echoes this by declaring that judicial
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
important facts bearing upon the issue. Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
3) Re-direct examination by the proponent - After
cross-examination, the witness may be re-examined by The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere is
the party calling him, to explain or supplement his embodied in article 8 of the Civil Code of the
answers given during the cross-examination. Questions Philippines.
on matters not dealt with during cross-examination,
may be allowed by the court in its discretion. This is the doctrine that, when a court has once laid
down a principle, and apply it to all future cases,
4) Re-cross-examintaion by the opponent - After the where facts are substantially the same, regardless of
re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross whether the parties and properties the same. Follow
examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct the past precedents and do not disturb what has been
examination, and also on such other matters as may settled. Matters already decided on the merits cannot
be allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sections 4-8, be subject to litigation again. But note that this rule
Rule 132) does not elicit blind adherence to precedents.
4
REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
basic marital covenant, as so provided for in Article 68 of
It is based on the principle that once a question of law the Family Code; that the incapacity is grave, has preceded
has been examined and decided, it should be deemed the marriage and is incurable; that his incapacity to meet
settled and closed to further argument. Only upon his marital responsibility is because of a psychological, not
showing that circumstances attendant in a particular physical illness; that the root cause of the incapacity has
case override the great benefits derived by our judicial been identified medically or clinically, and has been proven
system from the doctrine of stare decisis, can the by an expert; and that the incapacity is permanent and
courts be justified in setting aside the same. incurable in nature.
Discuss the case of Pesca v. Pesca (356 SCRA 588) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in
and how the stare decisis was discussed in this the plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of
case. the existence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullity.
FACTS: The petitioner and respondent were married and
had four children. Lorna filed a petition for declaration of The "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in Article 8 of the
nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological Civil Code, expresses that judicial decisions applying or
incapacity on the part of her husband. She alleged that he interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of
is emotionally immature and irresponsible. He was cruel the Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal maxim
and violent. He was a habitual drinker. Whenever she tells legis interpretado legis vim obtinet that the
him to stop or at least minimize his drinking, her husband interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent
would hurt her. There was even a time when she was court has the force of law.
chased by a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in
the presence of their children. The children also suffered The interpretation or construction placed by the courts
physical violence. Petitioner and their children left the establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the
home. Two months later, they returned upon the promise law. The latter as so interpreted and construed would thus
of respondent to change. But he didnt. She was battered constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is
again. Her husband was imprisoned for 11 days for slight enacted. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds
physical injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void. itself later overruled, and a different view is adopted, that
CA reversed RTCs ruling. Hence, this petition. the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in
favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and
ISSUE: W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity in have acted in good faith in accordance therewith under the
the case of Republic vs CA & Molina should be taken in familiar rule of lex prospicit, non respicit.
consideration in deciding in this case.