Reasoning

Reasoning SCANNER Normal JOJO 4 20 2002-01-15T03:52:00Z 2002-01-15T04:20:00Z 2 614 3503 SC 29 7 4301 9.2720 110

JUDICIAL REASONING

I. METHODS OF REASONING

1. Analogy: drawing a conclusion on the basis of a similarity between cases.

1.1 Caution: For any conclusion to be validly drawn, the two cases must in fact be similar on all significant points. Any significant difference may make the conclusion in one case in applicable to another.

1.2 Example: In People v. X (hypothetical case), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a person who had issued bad checks in connection with a financing scheme for the purchase of a car. The case before a particular Judge's Bench/Court likewise involves bad checks issued by a purchaser under a financing scheme. Conclusion: A conviction is in order.

1.3 Ruling on the basis of judicial precedent is reasoning by analogy.

1.4 Procedure:

1.4.1 Research for a decided case of the Supreme Court that, by heading or topic, deals with the case before you.

1.4.2 Determine whether or not the fact-pattern in the decided case and in the case before you is the same.

1.4.3 Determine whether or not the laws cited in the decided case are still in force.

1.4.4 In case of identity or substantial similarity in fact-pattern, and if the laws cited in the decided case are still in force, apply the rule in the decided case.

1.5 Analogy may also be the basis for filling in lacunae in the law.

Example:

Ozoa v. Vda. de Madula

An employer who was held subsidiarily liable for the civil liability of an employee in a criminal case wished to appeal from the adverse decision. There is no rule fixing the period for appeal. The Supreme Court applied the same rule governing appeals in criminal cases: fifteen days from notice or promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal. 1

2. Induction: the process of forming a general conclusion by examining a number of particular instances.

2.1 It is basically the search for an explanation of a pattern.

2.2 It is the process of reasoning at work in the following and similar situations:

2.2.1 Impeaching a witness on the basis of previous instances of untruthfulness or unreliability.

2.2.2 Establishing the status, dignity or worth of a person by the use of character testimony.

2.2.3 Generalizations about human behavior that enable a court to determine what does or does not conform with human nature and human conduct.

2.2.4 Generalizations about 'customs' or 'business practices.'

2.3 Pitfalls of inductive reasoning:

2.3.1 Hasty generalization; conclusions drawn from an examination of too few samples; cursory and occasional observations do not legitimize a generalization.

2.3.2 The possibility that a human person may indeed behave in an extraordinary manner or in a way that does not conform to the general pattern of behavior.

3. Deduction

3.1 The classic form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism:

M is P.

S is M.

Therefore: S is P.

All common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the care of passengers and of cargo.

This jeepney is a common carrier.

Ergo : It is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the care of passengers and of cargo.

3.2 It is in virtue of their identity or non-identity with a third term, called the 'Middle term' that the subject and predicate terms of the conclusion are either joined (in affirmations) or separated (as in denials).

Example:

Rubio v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation

Officials and employees 'under the civil service' whose positions are abolished shall be granted separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service. ( Section 76 , B.P. 337)

Petitioners were officials and employees under the civil service whose positions were abolished.

Therefore: Petitioners are entitled to separation pay. 2

3.3 The development of mathematical logic has also allowed for 'formal proofs of validity' of deductive reasoning.

Example:

The Rule of 'Modus Tollens' coupled with the Theorems of De Morgan and the Rule of Addition allow the following argument:

If the marriage of Filipinos solemnized abroad is to be considered valid, then it must conform with the laws of the jurisdiction where celebrated the Filipinos must have capacity to contract under our laws. (?)

But Julia was only sixteen at the time of the marriage and therefore lacked capacity.

Therefore: the marriage was not valid.

1 No. L-62955, December 22, 1987, 156 SCRA 779.

2 G. R. No. 31469, May 22, 1990, 185 SCRA 656.