Laurence John B.

Sortigosa 1-D

The Unlikely Contradiction in the Profession

In 2012, the whole nation witnessed the first Impeachment Trial on the highest
position of the Judicial Branch, the primos inter pares in the Supreme Court, an
impeachment trial against Chief Justice was initiated on the grounds of Betrayal of
Public Trust, Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Graft and Corruption.

As a Chief Justice at the time, CJ Reynato Corona was equipped with well-
educated and highly respected defense counsel, among his counsels is the Former
Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas.

CJ Corona and his Defense Counsel has impressive resume in the administration
of justice, it can be presumed that it is unlikely for them to commit fallacies in legal
reasoning, however it was very surprising that even the highly respected in the
profession committed fallacies in logical reasoning that most likely affected the
decision resulting to his impeachment.

Argumentatum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

“This impeachment finds its roots in President Aquino’s fight against corruption
and his perception that the Supreme Court is a hindrance to his quest. He believes that
the Supreme Court protects former President Gloria Arroyo. On the other hand, the
defense believes that President Aquino is antagonistic to the Court because of its
ruling in the Hacienda Luisita case.”

This fallacy ignores the issue by focusing on certain personal characteristics of an

opponent. Instead of addressing the arguments and issues presented by an opponent,
this fallacy makes the opponent the issue. It diverts the attention from the argument
and fogs the main issue; instead of disproving the substance of the argument
presented by an opponent, the argument attacks the person presenting the argument.

In the case above, the arguments presented by former Chief Justice Corona
attacks the impeachment proceeding based on the President’s reputation, personality
and his family background. The arguments presented by the defense here is presented
to win the approval of other not on the basis of the merits of what is the necessary
issue to be answered in the case but based on his inference that the impeachment
proceedings was initiated by motivations for personal gain of the opposing side.

The defense counsel of Former CJ Corona should have directly tackled the
allegations against him, instead of discussing the Presidents presumed malice against
the Former Chief Justice.

Argumentatum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

“Marami na po ang nagsabi sakin, bakit ka ba lumalaban? You cannot fight

Malacañang. Magbititiw ka na lang sa tungkulin. Magiging tahimik na ang buhay mo,
wala nang maghahabol sa iyo, ang pamilya mo hindi na masasaktan, titigal na ang
Laurence John B. Sortigosa 1-D

panggigipit, titigil na ang black propaganda laban sa iyo at titigil na ang

kasinungalingan. Pero ano naman po ang kahulugan nito kung ako ay nagbitaw na sa
tungkulin? Nangangahulugan po noon ay parang umatras ako sa laban at parang
nanalo na lang iyong kabila without having to prove anything, kawawa naman po ako
at ang aking pamilya.”

This statement is one of the several statements made by the Former Chief Justice
that contains the fallacy of irrelevance, argumentatum ad mesiricordian. This fallacy
aims to persuade the judge to accept the argument not for its strength but because of
the arguers emotional appeal to pity. This fallacy convinces the listeners by evoking
the feelings resulting to pity such as compassion and sympathy, such feelings however
understandable are not logically relevant to the issue being addressed.

In the case mentioned, the issue at hand is the impeachment of Corona for
Betrayal of Public Trust, Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Graft and
Corruption. His statements regarding how the odds are against his favor, how
threatened has his life become, his perseverance to his duties and on how his family is
burdened does not have any logical connection as a defense against the charges filed
against him, in other words irrelevant if not futile.

The Former CJ’s argument presented here is irrelevant to the case filed against
him, it does not have any merit although he maybe not punished for presenting
irrelevant statements, he should have presented evidence to prove his innocence from
the accusations against him.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance)

“Sabi ni Ombudsman Carpio-Morales, ako raw po ay may US$10 million

hanggang US$12 million po sa 82 bank accounts. Wala po akong kilalang tao na may
82 bank accounts. Ewan ko lang po kay Ombudsman Morales, baka siya mayroon
kaya nakatanim sa isop niya yong 82 bank accounts.”

Arguing from ignorance means 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. in other words, treating the absesnce of evidence as the presence of
evidence itself.

In the the above, Former CJ Corona argued that the absence of persons situated
the same as him, accused of having 82 bank accounts proves that the accusation
against him must be false. Such conclusion was supported by the arguer’s lack of
knowledge or evidence. New knowledge to support his arguments must emanate from
some measuere of knowledge rather from his ignorance. It is elementary in logic that
one must have knowledge or positive evidence to draw any conclusion.

The Former CJ Corona should have instead presented positive evidence to

disprove the allegations of his opponent rather than draw conclusion from the absence
of it.
Laurence John B. Sortigosa 1-D
Laurence John B. Sortigosa 1-D

Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People)

“Mga mahal kong kababayan. Ako po ay nandito sa Impeachment Court na ito

upang tumupad sa aking pangako sa sambayanan na ako ay magpapaliwanag ng
lahat..”

This fallacy is committed when instead of focusing the argument and issue at
hand, he addressed stated the above purposely to appeal to the people. He was
supposed to address the issue to the Impeachment Court, but since he instead
addressed it to the people since the trial was widely followed by the public.

Former CJ Corona should have addressed the courts , that he is now appearing in
the Court to explain his innocence. His statements above should be reserved to be
addressed to the media instead in an Impeachment Trial.

Ignorantia Elenchi

“I am hunbly asking- I am humbly asking all 188 complainants from the House of
Represemtative, led by the congressmen in the Prosecution Panel, and Senator
Franklin Drilon to join me in a moment of truth as gesture of transparency and
reconciliation with the Filipino people and to one another. I am asking them to sign
these blank forms and join me sapagkat hilinh po ito ng bayan, Let us face the people
together. The nation is at standstill. Our People are watching all of us. Our people
have been drawn into this intriguing web of dissension and divisiveness.”

The fallacy Ignorantia Elenchi is committed when instead of answering the

allegations charged against him directly; he attempts to readress the issue to another
issue. Instead of answering the allegation directly regarding his transparency, CJ
Corona challenged the complainants from the House of Representatives addressing
the transparency of the 188 complainants, trying to divert the issue and redirecting it
to another. The argument of Corona is irrelevant, assuming that the 188 complainants
are dishonest in their dealings, this would not prove CJ Corona’s innocence.

The proposal of CJ Corona infers that if they all are equally guilty of the issue,
this would mean he should be acquitted. As a Chief Justice where he serves for the
administration of justice, he should know better, CJ Corona should have answered the
accusations against him instead of pointing fingers that others are guilty and present
evidence to support his claims.