Legal-technique-and-logic-reviewer__for Law students or Philosophy Students PDF

Preview

Summary

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGICBASIC LEGAL CONCEPTSA. LOGIC The study of methods and principles used to DISTINGUISH CORRECT from INCORRECT reasoning.  Sorting GOOD ARGUMENTS from BAD ARGUMENTSB. PROPOSITIONS  Building block of arguments  Can be ASSERTED or DENIED  Can be TRUE or FALSE (do not apply t...

Description

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

F.

VALIDITY AND TRUTH  Validity o Relation between propositions o Does not apply to single propositions o When argument is valid, and its premises are true, it is SOUND.  Truth and Falsity o Attributes of individual propositions o Single statement that serves as a premise might be true but the statement that serves the conclusion might be false o Does not apply to arguments because an argument may be valid even if one or two of its premises is not true.

G.

REASONING  Retrograde analysis is the reasoning that seeks to explain how thins must have developed from what went before.  In a certain flight crew, the positions of pilot, copilot, and flight engineer are held by three persons, Allen, Brown and Carr, though not necessarily in that order.

BASIC LEGAL CONCEPTS A.

LOGIC  The study of methods and principles used to DISTINGUISH CORRECT from INCORRECT reasoning.  Sorting GOOD ARGUMENTS from BAD ARGUMENTS

B.

PROPOSITIONS  Building block of arguments  Can be ASSERTED or DENIED  Can be TRUE or FALSE (do not apply to questions, commands, or exclamations)

C.

D.

E.

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS  Two Common Techniques: o Paraphrasing  Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because language die and mathematical ideas do not. Languages die. The great plays of Aeschylus are in a language. So the work of Aeschylus will eventually dies. o Diagram RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS  Conclusion and Premise Indicators o Conclusion Indicators o Premise Indicators  Arguments in Context  Premises not in Declarative form o Rhetorical Question - interrogative even though its meaning is declarative o Imperative/Command  Unstated Proposition o Enthymes are propositions that are left unstated but it would be understood.  Arguments vs. Explanation o In determining difference, deciding factor is the INTENTION of the author. CLASSES OF ARGUMENTS  Deductive o Conclusion is supported by premises conclusive.  Are either VALID or INVALID - no additional premises could possibly add to the strength of that argument  “If all humans are mortal, and if Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal” o Techniques used: Modern Symbolic Logic & Classical Logic  Inductive o Premises provide some support for its conclusion.  The higher the LEVEL OF PROBABILITY, the greater the merit of the argument.  But even when the premises are all true and provide very strong support for the conclusion, the CONCLUSION IS NEVER CERTAIN. o Always possible that additional information will strengthen or weaken it.  Most corporation lawyers are conservatives. Angela Reyes is a corporation lawyer. Therefore Angela Reyes is probably a conservative. Suppose that Angela Reyes is an office of the ACLU. We can also add that Most officers of the ACLU are not conservatives. This additional information weakened the original inductive argument.

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 1

The Copilot, who is an only child, earns the least. Carr, who married Brown’s sister, earns more than the pilot What position does each of the three persons hold? Answer: Carr – flight engineer, earns more than pilot, co-pilot earns the least. Brown – pilot, Carr is flight engineer, co-pilot is only child Brown has sister Allen – co-pilot 

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Alonzo, Kurt, Rudolf and Willard are four creative artists of great talent. One is a dancer, one is a painter, one is a singer, and one is a writer, though not in necessarily in that order.

Alonzo and Rudolf were in the audience the night the singer made his debut on the concert stage. Both Kurt and the writer have had their portraits painted from life by the painter. The writer, whose bibliography of Willard was a best-seller, is planning to write a biography of Alonzo. Alonzo has never heard of Rudolf. What is each man’s artistic field? Alonzo – dancer Kurt – singer Rudolf – writer Willard – painter

FALLACIES A.

GENERAL CLASSIFICATION  Formal Fallacy: a pattern of mistake that appears in deductive arguments of a certain specifiable form  Informal Fallacy: more common, mistakes made in the everyday uses of language arising from confusions concerning the content of the language used

B.

CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES  FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE are the most commonly encountered in everyday language wherein the premises of the argument are simply irrelevant to the conclusion. Premises may be psychologically relevant in that they invoke attitudes that may cause acceptance of the conclusion.

o

o

o

o

o

o

o



Argument Ad Hominem - A fallacious attack not against a conclusion, but AGAINST A PERSON WHO ASSERTS OR DEFENDS IT.  Abusive - AGAINST THE CHARACTER of the opponent, denying their intelligence or reasonableness, questioning their integrity. Variations: genetic fallacy, unfair accusation, guilt by association  Circumstantial - CIRCUMSTANCES OF ONE WHO MAKES OR REJECTS SOME CLAIM have no bearing on the truth of that claim. Circumstances: his employment, nationality, political affiliation. “Tu quoque”. Appeal to the Populace (argument ad populum) -The passions of the speaker are used to convince listeners that some beliefs are true, as the speaker plays with the emotions of the listeners.  Example: Commercial Advertising, Political Nature of Speeches Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam) - Premises of an argument boil down to no more than an appeal to feelings as premises. The emotions appealed to are that of generosity and mercy. Example: The story of a youth who killed his parents and when confronted with  overwhelming proof of guilt, his attorney pleads for leniency on the grounds that he is now an orphan. Red Herring (topic not related) - Attention is drawn to some observation or claim that may be associated with the TOPIC BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT  Example 1: Economic inequality tempered with the argument that most members of the community are well off, which does not disprove the argument of the huge gap between the social classes.  Example 2: The original topic is legislation to compel corporations to protect the pensions of their employees, but a senator deflects the discussion on the topic of providing advice to retired persons for the investment of their pensions.  Example 3: In a rape case, when a publication supporting the prosecutor diverted the topic to poverty. Straw Man (absolute view) - Position of the opponent is depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable than what was asserted. A strategy used against another which SUPPOSES THAT THE POSITION UNDER ATTACK IS TAKING THE ABSOLUTE VIEW (always wrong, always justified)  Example: Attacks on RH bill presupposing that it supports killing of all unborn children. The Appeal to Force (argument ad baculum) - Use or THREAT OF “STRONG-ARM” METHODS TO COERCE OPPONENTS as a last resort when evidence or rational methods fail. Total abandonment of reason Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, non sequitur) - Committed when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to proving a different conclusion. Premises “MISS THE POINT” – “Non Sequitur”  Example 1: Arguments in social legislation. A program, designed to achieve a national objective, is supported by premises that provide reasons to share the larger end, but tells nothing relevant about the program  Example 2: Tax reforms defended by an emphasis on the need to reduce budget deficits-- when the real issue is the fairness of yield of the specific tax measure proposed

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION exhibit a special kind of mistake: the tacit supposition of what has not been given support and may even be insupportable. o Complex Question (rhetorical question) - Asking a question in such a way as to

o

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 2

presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question  Likely to be a RHETORICAL QUESTION, no answer being genuinely sought False Clause (post hoc ergo propter hoc, “after the thing, therefore because of the thing”) - Presuming the reality of a causal connection that does not really exist is a

o o

common mistake  Example 1: Unusual weather conditions are blamed on some unrelated celestial phenomenon that happened to precede them.  Example 2: Infection really caused by a virus is thought to be caused by a chill wind or wet feet  Death penalty in the United States has given us the highest crime rate and greatest number of prisoners per 100,000 population in the industrialized world. (from New York Times). Begging the Question (petitio principia) - Assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. Technically valid - but always worthless Accident and Converse Accident - Accidents which arise as a result of the careless, or deliberately deceptive, use of generalizations.  Fallacy of accident: presume the applicability of a GENERALIZATION TO INDIVIDUAL CASES that it does not properly govern. “from generalization”  Fallacy of converse accident: presume that what is TRUE OF A PARTICULAR CASE IS TRUE OF THE GREAT RUN OF CASES. “to generalization”

●

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY meaning of words or phrases may shift as a result of inattention, or may be deliberately manipulated within the course of an argument. o Equivocation (confuse meaning) - Confuse the several meanings of a word or phraseaccidentally or deliberately in an argument. o Amphiboly (grammatical construction) -Formulations are ambiguous because of their

o

o

o

grammatical construction. A word’s meaning is indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way in which its words are combined. Accent (emphasis) - Premise relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion is drawn from it that relies on the meaning of the same words accented differently. Composition (attribute of part to whole) - Applied to both of two closely related types of invalid argument:  Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself  Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the individual elements or members of a collection to attributes of the collection or totality of those elements. Division (attribute of whole to parts) - Arguing fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts. Arguing from the attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of the elements themselves  Example 1: A certain corporation is important; Mr. Doe is an official of that corporation. Therefore, Mr. Doe is important.  Example: A student must have a large room because it is located in a large dormitory

CASE LAW AND PRECEDENT A.

COURT DECISIONS  These decisions are “law” by their own right o SC decisions: Binding as precedent because of doctrine of stare decisis. They should be “definitive and authoritative, binding on those occupying the lower ranks in the judicial hierarchy.” GENERAL RULE: All lower courts are bound by SC decisions EXCEPT: if case cannot be “decided” if decision subject to MFR. o Stare decisis: Lower courts should adhere to doctrinal rules established by the SC in its final decisions. SC explained: (1) the decisions of higher courts bind lower courts (2) Courts of coordinate authority do not bind each other (3) One highest court does not



bind itself. Becomes part of law as of the date that the law was originally passed 

B.

C.

STARE DECISES – “Doctrine of Precedent” (Stare Decises et non quieta movare)  Judge-made law: Like cases should be decided alike  Works as a bar only against issues litigated in a previous case which are non-procedural (substantial)  Enjoys adherence by the lower courts to doctrinal rules established by the Supreme Court o Once a question of law has been examined, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument  Encourages private settlement of disputes because it discourages individuals from forum and judge shopping.  Stare decisis is not an inexorable command but a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision o Abandoning stare decisis must be based on STRONG and COMPELLING reasons o The court may be guided but it is not controlled by precedent  Bowers v. Hardwick – Only SC can overturn SC decision. Ruling overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.  Gerona v. Secretary of Education - Court sanctioned the expulsion of the students. In 1993, the Court, in Ebralinag v. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, took the opposite position. SC overturned SC decision.  Maliksi v. Comelec - Sometimes, a doctrine may be abandoned because Congress amended the pertinent law that was the basis of a SC decision. A doctrine, if found contrary to law, must be abandoned because “the principle of stare decisis does not and should not apply when there is conflict between the precedent and the law.”  De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines – “Number Fever”. Despite the difference in the parties involved, the legal rights & relations of the parties, facts, applicable laws, causes of action, issues, and evidence are the same, that’s why the SC dismissed the third complaint on the basis of the previous dismissal of the first two. The SC was bound by finality of judgements.  Villena v. Spouses Chavez - A conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. SC held this case was similar to a case previously settled by the CA. Thus, the SC ruled the proper action was not unlawful detainer but rescission of contract or specific performance. The earlier ruling should apply by way of stare decisis.  Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 - Olaguer asked the SC to revisit the issue of whether military commissions or tribunals had jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses allegedly committed during martial law when civil courts were functioning. SC overturned Aquino Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 and six other decisions and ruled that the creation of Military Commission No. 34 to try civilians was unconstitutional. All its proceedings were deemed null and void. Precedent is not upheld just because the SC has already ruled on the issue. Precedence can’t prevail when constitutionalism & public interest demand it. RES JUDICATA  REQUISITES o The former judgment or order must be final o the judgment of order must be on the merits o It must have been rendered by the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties o There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and cause of action. 1. Identity of parties – Representing same interests in both parties 2. Identity of rights – Belief being founded on the same facts 3. Identity in two particulars – Any judgment which may be rendered in another will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in consideration  “A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment”.

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 3



o Applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, not administrative. o Interlocutory order does not result to res judicata Rests on the principle that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate o There should be an end to litigation by the same parties over a subject once fully and fairly adjudicated Res judicata vs. Stare decisis - the focal point of res judicata is the judgement but for stare decisis, it is the doctrine created.

D.

LAW OF THE CASE  Effect of judgment or final orders: (Paragraph 2) “In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.” (Sec. 47, Rule 39, ROC)  Whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal principle of the decision continues to be the law of the case BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES IN THE SAME CASE, as long as the facts of the case remain the same.  Law of the case v. Stare decisis: o A decision on a prior appeal of the same case usually refers to the law of the case while stare decisis may pertain to other cases with similar nature. o Stare decisis forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in another case. o law of the case deals entirely with questions of law while stare decisis is generally concerned with the effect of adjudication in a wholly independent proceeding.

E.

INCONSISTENSIES  Sweetheart defense in rape cases which suggests that the existence of a romantic relationship precludes the possibility of rape. o The court said that even if the relationship really existed, the fact that they are “sweethearts” does not negate the crime of rape. Love is not a license for love. But what really destroyed the “sweetheart” defense was the declaration of “AAA” that she did not love him. o From the aforementioned case, it seems that evidence can be shown to prove that there is actually a romantic relationship. If the existence of a relationship does not preclude the existence of rape, then why allow the admission of such evidence? o “Sweetheart defense” rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. It may be true that the defendant and the plaintiff were lovers, there was no license for accused-appellant to force himself upon her.  Judicial flip-flopping is another form of inconsistency in SC decisions involving a single case which the SC justices cannot seem to agree on what the correct interpretation of the law should be. o League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC - SC reversed itself three times and it did so in a span of three years. o Indecision on the part of the Court creates little confidence in the Judiciary. It suggests that the law is nothing more than the Justices whims, especially when the members of the Court shift sides in the dispute. This particular case became of the grounds for the impeachment case of Chief Justice Renato Corona in December 2011.

RATIO DECIDENDI & OBITER DICTUM A.

RATIO DECIDENDI  Binding precedent



B.

C.

apply only to the specific case for which the request was made

Ultimate issue directly before the court, expressly decided in the consideration of the case, so that any resolution thereon must be considered as authoritative precedent.

OBITER DICTUM  Not a binding precedent. It cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of the SC and is not safe from judicial examination.  A matter that was not raised expressly and therefore, it was required for the disposition of the case. SC has ruled that a remark made by a judge in a decision upon a cause, and not directly upon the question before the court.  Oposa v. Factoran - Cited as a case that recognizes the standing of future generations to sue on behalf of the environment. A careful analysis of the case will show that Secretary Factoran never challenged petitioner's standing to sue. The pronouncement on standing is obiter dictum as, in this case, it touched upon a matter that was not raised expressly by the petitioner, and therefore, it was not a prerequisite in disposing of the case. Of course, the Philippine Supreme Court has also held that dictum is generally not binding as authority or precedent within the stare decisis rule, but may be followed if sufficiently persuasive.  Mercado v Peop...