Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
COLLEGE OF LAW
SUMMARY OF REPORTS
IN
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
(CHAPTER 5: FALLACIES IN LEGAL REASONING)
Submitted by:
Ms. MENNE TESALONA
Mr. JOHN KENNIE ANTRAJENDA
Ms. MARIAN C. RAPADAS
STUDENTS, BACHELOR OF LAWS
Submitted to:
JUDGE MAXIMO M. DE LEON
PROFESSOR
Page 1
Page 2
4. Vicious Abstraction
5. Composition
6. Division
1. EQUIVOCATION
Example: Gambling should be legalized because it is something we can avoid. It is an
integral part of human experience. People gamble every time they get in their
cars or decide to get married.
No man will take counsel, but every man will take money.
The equivocation here was shown if we replace- No man will heed advice but every man will
heed money. The unclear language between two meanings is fallacious.
Applied to law, because language can be interpreted in multiple ways, it is important for the
court to always go back to the context in which the language in the law has been formulated.
2. AMPHIBOLY - Presenting a claim or argument where meaning can be interpreted in two or
more ways due to grammatical construction.
Examples:
1. CHR lawyers give poor free legal advice
2. I give and bequeath the sum of Php500,000 to my nieces Angel Ramos and Rosie Quintos.
This is subject to different interpretation as the nieces would be asking for Php500,000 each
while the lawyer would interpret it as the Php500,000 would be divided between Angel and
Rosie.
3. IMPROPER ACCENT - can also be found in headlines and any form of discourse. This
fallacy consist in misleading people by placing improper emphasis on a word, phrase, or
particular aspect of an issue or claim.
Examples:
1. President to declare Martial Law.
2. Art. 14 (1936 Hague Convention on questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality
Laws)
A CHILD WHOSE PARENTS ARE BOTH UNKNOWN SHALL HAVE THE
NATIONALITY OF BIRTH.
Legal Technique and Logic
Page 3
Page 4
2. A rope is strong and can easily support the weight of a full-grown person. A rope is
nothing but a collection of individual strands. Therefore, a strand of rope is strong and
can easily support the weight of a full-grown person.
A strand is being attributed to the whole strength of rope.
3. SG insisted that the Petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen based on 99.93%
statistical probability that any child born in the Philippines for 2010-2014 would be a
natural-born Filipino citizen. From 1965 to 1975, there is 99.83% statistical probability
that a child born in the Philippines would be a natural-boar Filipino citizens.
If there is 99.83% probability that a child born in the Philippines is a natural-born
Filipino citizen, it does not automatically follow that there is 99.83% probability that a
foundling born in the Philippines is a natural born Filipino citizen. The data, if any, in
the universe of foundlings may show a different statistical probability. Since the figures
were collected from a universe of children with known parents, either Filipino or
foreigners, and not from the universe of foundlings, the SG proposition is fallacious in
concluding that foundlings in the Philippines are natural born Filipino citizens.
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
KINDS OF FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
1. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Personal Attack)
-
Page 5
This fallacy attacks the argument based on the arguers reputation, personality or some
personal shortcoming.
Xs statement must be wrong because X is a socialist
This fallacy consists in defending ones proposition by accusing his or her critic or other
people of doing the same thing. This is called tu quoque which means youre another
or you yourself do it.
Jenny, dont have any romantic relationship while youre still in college, But
Mom, you and dad were already in a relationship when you were college students.
Let us examine the following argument:
I dont think the opposition party has a valid reason for criticizing the move of the
present administration to privatize government-run industries. When the opposition party
was in power in the previous regime, it sold several government companies like
NAPOCOR and MWSS to the private sector.
Atty. Mane vs. Judge Belen (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119)
Santos vs. Aranzanso (GR. No. L-26940, August 21, 1982)
This fallacy convinces the people by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy when
such feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the arguers
conclusion.
A classic example of this fallacy is the closing speech of Clarence Darrow when he
defended Thomas Kidd, a union official on trial for criminal conspiracy.
Page 6
I appeal to you not for Thomas Kidd, but I appeal to you for the long line the
long, long line reaching back through the ages and forward to the years to come
the long line of despoiled and downtrodden people of the earth. I appeal to you
for those men who rise in the morning before daylight comes and who go home at
night when light has faded from the sky and give their life, their strength, their toil
to make others rich and great. I appeal to you in the name of those women who
are offering up their lives to this modern god of gold, and I appeal to you in the
name of those children, the living and the unborn.
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 ones view.
Example:
Cabinet secretary to a congressman: The President wants the Congress to pass this
bill. I think you have to support it. Of course, you dont want Malacaan to reduce
your Priority Development Assistance Fund which will finance your infrastructure
projects in your town.
The fallacy of assuming as a premise a statement which has the same meaning as the
conclusion.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PETITIO PRINCIPII
1. Arguing in Circle
2. Question-begging Language
3. Complex Question
ARGUING IN CIRCLE
-
Page 7
QUESTION-BEGGING LANGUAGE
-
LEADING QUESTION
-
The question is simply begging the respondent to come to the same conclusion.
Illustrations:
Do you want that the enduring partnership between these two great companies will
end over something as trivial as this?
You were outside the country when the crime was committed, werent you?
It happens when the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support his
or her claim.
Page 8
EXAMPLE:
There is nothing wrong with kaingin. Our forefathers have practiced it since time
immemorial. Do you mean to tell me that they were wrong all the while?
2. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM (Appealing to Inappropriate Authority)
-
3. ACCIDENT (Exception)
-
In determining whether we need to apply the exceptions rather than the general
rule, we need to know the exceptional facts or special circumstances that are
present in the particular case. Examine very carefully the purpose of the
principle or rule and then discuss how the exceptions would be in order when
that purpose is not being violated or when it is superseded by more important
conflicting principle.
EXAMPLE:
In the law of Evidence, there are many exceptions to the HEARSAY RULE:
1. A dying declaration
2. A statement against interest or
3. A statement of a family history
In applying the general hearsay rule to these exceptions is to commit the fallacy of
accident or dicto simpliciter
Legal Technique and Logic
Page 9
EXAMPLE:
Issue regarding the COC filed by Poe in 2012 that she stated was six (6) years and six
(6) months period of residence in the Philippines and while the period of her residency
in her 2015 COC is ten (10) years and eleven (11) months by May 9, 2016.
The SC ruled that it was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC to treat the 2012
COC as a binding and conclusive admission against petitioner. IT could be given in
evidence against her, yes, but it was by no means conclusive. There is precedent after
all where a candidates mistake as to a period of residence made in a COC was overcome
by evidence. The SC cited the cased of Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
In ROMUALDEZ-COMELEC
- The candidate mistakenly put seven (7) months as per period of residence
where the required period was a minimum of one year. SC ruled that it is
the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which
ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has
satisfied the constitutions residency qualification requirement.
The COMELEC ought to have looked at the evidence presented and see if petitioner was
telling the truth that she was in the Philippines from May 24, 2005. Had the COMELEC
done its duty, it would have seen that the 2012 COC and the 2015 COC both correctly
stated the pertinent period of residency.
disregarded the evidence that petitioner actually and physically returned here on May 24,
2005 not because it was false, but only because COMELEC took the position that
domicile could be established only from petitioners repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 in
July 2006. However, it does not take away the fact that in reality, petitioner had returned
from the U.S. and was here to stay permanently, on May 24, 2005. When she claimed to
have been a resident for ten (10) years and eleven (11) months, she could do so in GOOD
FAITH.
Legal Technique and Logic
Page 10
This fallacy consists in assuming that a particular claim is true because its opposite
cannot be proven.
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 short, it is treating the absence of
evidence as if it were the presence of evidence
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. Alternatives are exhaustive when they cover all the possibilities (meaning, these
are the only choice we have).
The President prematurely and unilaterally closes out other options including revising
and improving the measure or negotiating a new peace agreement that will include all
stakeholders in Mindanao and Sulu. He seeks to scare the house of Congress into passing
the BBL, and the public into supporting the measure.
The proponent of the argument tries to justify a questionable action by creating a false
sense of necessity, to force a choice between two options, when there are other possible
options.
source: www.manilatimes.net/bbl-or-body-bags-is-a-false-choice/177770
Page 11