Secretary of Justice vs. Judge Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, Jan. 18, 2000
Facts:
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the United States requesting for the extradition of Mark Jimenez for various crimes in violation of US laws. In compliance with the related municipal law, specifically Presidential Decree No. 1069 “Prescribing the Procedure for Extradition of Persons Who Have committed Crimes in a Foreign Country” and the established “Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America”, the department proceeded with proceeded with the designation of a panel of attorneys to conduct a technical evaluation and assessment as provided for in the presidential decree and the treaty. The respondent requested for a copy of the official extradition request as well as the documents and papers submitted therein. The petitioner denied the request as it alleges that such information is confidential in nature and that it is premature to provide such document as the process is not a preliminary investigation but a mere evaluation. Therefore, the constitutional rights of the accused are not yet available.
Issue:
1.Whether or not private respondent, Mark B. Jimenez, be granted access to the official extradition request and documents with an opportunity to file a comment on or opposition thereto
2.Whether or not private respondent’s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent be furnished a copy of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to give him a reasonable period of time within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. In this case, there exists a clear conflict between the obligation of the Philippine Government to comply with the provisions of the treaty and its equally significant role of protection of its citizens of its right of due process. The processes outlined in the treaty and in the presidential decree already pose an impending threat to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as the evaluation stage. It is not an imagined threat to his liberty, but a very imminent one. On the other hand, granting due process to the extradition case causes delay in the process.The rule of pacta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of international law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.In this case, there is no conflict between international law and municipal law. The United States and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. At the same time, both States accord common due process protection to their respective citizens. In fact, neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes the rights of due process from a prospective extradite.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Agustin vs Edu, 88 SCRA 195
Facts: This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No. 229, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure early warning devices to be installed a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. In compliance with such letter of instruction, the Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office issued Administrative Order No. 1 directing the compliance thereof. This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative order are unlawful and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process, equal protection of the law and undue delegation of police power.
Issue: Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent Administrative Order issued is unconstitutional
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in question are deemed not unconstitutional. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such was established to promote public welfare and public safety. In fact, the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - that such letter was issued in consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on the streets and highways
Facts: This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No. 229, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure early warning devices to be installed a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. In compliance with such letter of instruction, the Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office issued Administrative Order No. 1 directing the compliance thereof. This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative order are unlawful and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process, equal protection of the law and undue delegation of police power.
Issue: Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent Administrative Order issued is unconstitutional
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in question are deemed not unconstitutional. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such was established to promote public welfare and public safety. In fact, the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - that such letter was issued in consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on the streets and highways
BAYAN vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570
FACTS :
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a military bases agreement which formalized, among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by the US military personnel. To further strengthen their defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the US entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951. Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels and aircraft.
In 1991, with the expiration of RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the periodic military exercises between the two countries were held in abeyance. However, the defence and security relationship continued pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty. On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Negotiations by both panels on VFA led to a consolitdated draft text and a series of conferences. Eventually, President Fidel V. Ramos approved the VFA.
On October 5, 1998 President Joseph E. Estrada ratified the VFA thru respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting thru Executive Secretary Zamora officially transmitted to the Senate, the Instrument of Ratification, letter of the President and the VFA for approval. It was approved by the Senate by a 2/3 vote of its members. On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an exchange of notes between Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard.
The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines. Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of the VFA and imputing grave abuse of discretion to respondents in ratifying the agreement.
ISSUE : Whether or not the VFA is unconstitutional.
RULING :
Petition is dismissed.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senateby the other contracting state”.
The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.
In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.
Undoubtedly, Sec. 25 Art. XVIII which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases and troops should apply in the instant case. Hence, for VFA to be constitutional it must sufficiently meet the following requisites :
a) it must be under a treaty
b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate, and when so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum
c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State
There is no dispute in the presence of the first two requisites. The third requisite implies that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the US treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. They are equally binding obligations upon nations. Therefore, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the constitution.
The court also finds that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the executive department as to their power to ratify the VFA.
Tanada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997
Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.
Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.
Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
Facts: Petitioner, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces, was charged before a military commission set by Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Said executive order also established a National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. Petitioner contended that E.O. No. 68 was illegal and unconstitutional because he cannot be tried fro violation of international conventions, like the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Furthermore, he alleged that the participation of two American lawyers in the prosecution was violative of our national sovereignty.
Issue: Whether the Philippine Government has the jurisdiction to try and convict Kuroda for violating prohibited acts of the war.
Held: Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional because Article II, Section 3 of the 1935 Constitution explicitly provides that “the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of nation.”
In promulgation and enforcement of E.O. No. 68, the President of the Philippine exercised his power as commander-in-chief of all armed forces. Moreover, it was in adherence with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which form part of our Constitution.
With regards to the contention about the participation of two American lawyers, the Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States and thus, we were equally bound together with the US and Japan, to the rights and obligations contained in the treaties. These rights and obligations were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty.
Facts: Petitioner, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces, was charged before a military commission set by Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Said executive order also established a National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. Petitioner contended that E.O. No. 68 was illegal and unconstitutional because he cannot be tried fro violation of international conventions, like the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Furthermore, he alleged that the participation of two American lawyers in the prosecution was violative of our national sovereignty.
Issue: Whether the Philippine Government has the jurisdiction to try and convict Kuroda for violating prohibited acts of the war.
Held: Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional because Article II, Section 3 of the 1935 Constitution explicitly provides that “the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of nation.”
In promulgation and enforcement of E.O. No. 68, the President of the Philippine exercised his power as commander-in-chief of all armed forces. Moreover, it was in adherence with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which form part of our Constitution.
With regards to the contention about the participation of two American lawyers, the Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States and thus, we were equally bound together with the US and Japan, to the rights and obligations contained in the treaties. These rights and obligations were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty.
Pimentel, Jr. vs. Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622
FACTS :
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdition over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern xxx and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” Its jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute. The Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
Hence this petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate and it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Respondents, however argue that it has no duty to transmit the copy of Rome Statute to Senate for concurrence.
ISSUE : Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.
RULING :
Petition is dismissed.
In our system of government, the President, being the head of the state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides for a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 votes of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.
Petitioners equate signing of the treaty with ratification, which are two different and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. Signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of good faith of the parties. Ratification, the other hand, is a formal act, executive by nature, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government.
The signature does not signify the final consent of the state to the treaty. It is ratification that binds the state to the provisions thereof. Under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence to the ratification. Such power of the President cannot be encroached by the courts via mandamus and the courts has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. Therefore, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to Senate.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
FALLACIES
The term “fallacy” is taken from the Latin word fallere which means to deceive or to lead astray, or from the Latin fallo meaning “I deceive.” From this etymological definition, a fallacy is an argument designed to deceive an opponent in order to lead him astray from the issue. Strictly speaking, fallacies are violations of the rules on inference.
I.Rhetorical fallacies
1. Incorrect obversion arises when, in changing the original proposition from affirmative to negative or from negative to affirmative, the meaning of the original proposition is changed.
Example:
All men are mortal beings.
No men are mortal beings.
2.Incorrect conversion arises from the mistake in the distribution of terms such that a term which is not distributed in the original proposition is distributed in the second proposition.
Example:
All mothers are females.
All females are mothers.
3. The fallacy of accent can be committed when there is a faulty emphasis of word. This may come in three variations: emphasis on punctuation, wrong interpretation of words, and word lifting.
Examples:
Emphasis on punctuation
Ruffa says Gretchen is cheating.
Ruffa, says Gretchen is cheating.
Ruffa says, Gretchen is cheating.
In the second statement, the one guilty of cheating is Ruffa according to Gretchen. While in the third statement, the one guilty of cheating is Gretchen according to Ruffa.
Wrong interpretation of words.
No parking on both sides.
A driver reads this literally and parks his car only on the left side rationalizing that what he is doing is legitimate inasmuch as he is not parking his car on both sides of the road or lane.
Jesus said: “Love your neighbor.” Well, I should not love Mary for she is not my neighbour.
The word “neighbor” does not represent only those persons living near your dwelling places or homes. In the Christian sense, it refers to all persons other than yourself.
Word lifting
I said, do not kill her. I said... kill her.
Word lifting is a manner of abridging a certain statement to the extent of taking out words out of the context without noticing that those words once taken may alter the meaning of the statement.
4. The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
Example:
A reckless motorist Friday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pick-up truck. Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pick-up truck.
II.Logical fallacies
A.Formal fallacies
1. Formal fallacies in categorical syllogisms are committed when the rules of the syllogism are violated.
(a)Fallacy of four terms – there must only be three terms in the entire syllogism, each of which must occur twice and must be used exactly in the same meaning throughout the argument. This fallacy is committed when more than three terms are used in the syllogism.
Example:
All men are handsome beings.
Juan is a man.
Therefore, Pedro is a handsome being.
(b) Fallacy of undistributed middle – the middle term must be universal in at least one of the premises. Violation of this rule gives rise to the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Example:
All monkeys are banana-eaters.
Juan is a banana-eater.
Therefore, Juan is a monkey.
(c) Fallacy of illicit major – is committed when the major term in the conclusion is universal but particular in the major premise.
Example:
All judges are lawyers.
Some professionals are not judges.
Therefore some professionals are not lawyers.
(d) Fallacy of illicit minor – is committed when the minor term in the conclusion is universal but particular in the minor premise.
Example:
All communists are subversive elements.
All communists are critics of the present administration.
Therefore, all critics of the present administration are subversive elements.
(e) Fallacy of negative premises – there must be at least one affirmative premise, as a rule. Violation of this rule constitutes a fallacy of negative premises.
Example:
Major Premise: No dogs are cats.
Minor Premise: No dogs are mice.
(No conclusion)
(f) Fallacy of particular premises – One of the premises must be universal. Violation of this rule gives rise to this fallacy.
Example:
Some politicians are Filipinos.
Some Cebuanos are not politicians.
Therefore, some Cebuanos are not Filipinos.
2. Formal fallacies in disjunctive syllogisms
3. Formal fallacies in hypothetical syllogisms
B. Material fallacies
1. The fallacy of equivocation
(a) The fallacy of quantity
(1) Fallacy of composition is committed when an attribute of a specific part is applied to the collective whole.
Example:
Jose is an intelligent boy.
Jose studies in Ateneo de Manila University.
Therefore, all who study in Ateneo are intelligent.
(2) Fallacy of division is committed when an attribute of a collective whole is applied to a specific part.
Example:
Logic students are good debaters.
John is a logic student.
Therefore, John is a good debater.
(b) The fallacy of quality
(1) Fallacy of simple accident
(2) Fallacy of converse accident proceeds from forming a general rule out of an insufficient amount of data or an incorrect interpretation of data.
Example:
Peter, my neighbor, won in the Bingo Pilipino.
James, my neighbour, also won in the Bingo Pilipino.
Therefore, we should play the Bingo Pilipino.
(3)Fallacy of specific accident is often called the “fallacy of ambiguous middle.”
Example:
Traffic is heavy every day.
Garry is a traffic policeman.
So, Garry is heavy.
2.The fallacy of presumption
(a)Begging the question
(1)Assumptio non- probata means the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise.
Example:
Everyone who cheats must be expelled.
Kim has cheated.
Hence, Kim must be expelled.
(2)Circulus in probando arises when the arguer uses two unproved propositions, each to establish the validity of the other.
Example:
The Bible is written by God because the Bible says so.
(b)Ignorantio elenchi
(1)Argumentum ad hominem can be committed when the listener attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the person or the character of the speaker rather than the content of his argument.
Example:
The speaker (who was a haunch back) on stage was delivering a speech in support of a certain political candidate.A certain person from the audience shouted saying, “How can you expect a straight reasoning from a crooked man?”
(2)Argumentum ad populum is committed when the claim being advanced by the speaker is emotionally convincing and eventually accommodated by the people or the audience.
Example:
Filipinos are lovers of peace and development.
Therefore, Filipinos would support the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) for joint military exercises.
(3)Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Example:
No one has proven it true that God wrote the bible.
Therefore, God is not the author of the bible.
No one has conclusively proven that there is no life on the moons of Jupiter.
Therefore, there is life on the moons of Jupiter.
(4)Argumentum ad verecundiam is committed when a speaker cites a claim grounded on a premise being made by an expert in an unrelated field.
Example:
The warrantless arrest of Sen. Honasan, Enrile, and Santiago is legal because Cardinal Sin said so.
(5)Argumentum ad baculum is committed when an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him if he does not accept the conclusion.
Example:
I believed that Carlos P. Romulo was the most intelligent UN Secretary General. And if you do not agree with this political belief, you will receive a grade of 5.0 in Forensics. Therefore, Carlos P. Romulo is the most intelligent UN Secretary General.
(6)Argumentum ex concessio is an argument from a previous admission. This fallacy arises when the disputant ignores the real question and asserts that his contention is valid because his opponent has previously admitted it to be so.
Example:
(c)Complex question involves a question that presumes another hidden question that makes it complex.
Example:
Question: Have you stopped visiting my wife?
Answer: Yes or No.
If the respondent answers the question with “yes,” then a conclusion can be presumed that, “The respondent had visited my wife, and now he stops.” And if the respondent answers the question with “no,” then a conclusion can be presumed that, “The respondent has been visiting my wife up to the present.”
(d)Non sequitor
(1)Simple non sequitor – arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise, without having a valid connection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the conclusion.
Example:
John is the most behave student in the class;
Therefore, he should be given the most tasks.
(2)False cause – post hoc, ergo propter hoc occurs when there is confusion in inferring cause-effect correlations.
Example:
Yesterday, I received a letter obliging me to write the same for fifty pieces. Days had passed and I failed to do so. I met an accident. Therefore, this letter must be mysterious.
The term “fallacy” is taken from the Latin word fallere which means to deceive or to lead astray, or from the Latin fallo meaning “I deceive.” From this etymological definition, a fallacy is an argument designed to deceive an opponent in order to lead him astray from the issue. Strictly speaking, fallacies are violations of the rules on inference.
I.Rhetorical fallacies
1. Incorrect obversion arises when, in changing the original proposition from affirmative to negative or from negative to affirmative, the meaning of the original proposition is changed.
Example:
All men are mortal beings.
No men are mortal beings.
2.Incorrect conversion arises from the mistake in the distribution of terms such that a term which is not distributed in the original proposition is distributed in the second proposition.
Example:
All mothers are females.
All females are mothers.
3. The fallacy of accent can be committed when there is a faulty emphasis of word. This may come in three variations: emphasis on punctuation, wrong interpretation of words, and word lifting.
Examples:
Emphasis on punctuation
Ruffa says Gretchen is cheating.
Ruffa, says Gretchen is cheating.
Ruffa says, Gretchen is cheating.
In the second statement, the one guilty of cheating is Ruffa according to Gretchen. While in the third statement, the one guilty of cheating is Gretchen according to Ruffa.
Wrong interpretation of words.
No parking on both sides.
A driver reads this literally and parks his car only on the left side rationalizing that what he is doing is legitimate inasmuch as he is not parking his car on both sides of the road or lane.
Jesus said: “Love your neighbor.” Well, I should not love Mary for she is not my neighbour.
The word “neighbor” does not represent only those persons living near your dwelling places or homes. In the Christian sense, it refers to all persons other than yourself.
Word lifting
I said, do not kill her. I said... kill her.
Word lifting is a manner of abridging a certain statement to the extent of taking out words out of the context without noticing that those words once taken may alter the meaning of the statement.
4. The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
Example:
A reckless motorist Friday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pick-up truck. Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pick-up truck.
II.Logical fallacies
A.Formal fallacies
1. Formal fallacies in categorical syllogisms are committed when the rules of the syllogism are violated.
(a)Fallacy of four terms – there must only be three terms in the entire syllogism, each of which must occur twice and must be used exactly in the same meaning throughout the argument. This fallacy is committed when more than three terms are used in the syllogism.
Example:
All men are handsome beings.
Juan is a man.
Therefore, Pedro is a handsome being.
(b) Fallacy of undistributed middle – the middle term must be universal in at least one of the premises. Violation of this rule gives rise to the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Example:
All monkeys are banana-eaters.
Juan is a banana-eater.
Therefore, Juan is a monkey.
(c) Fallacy of illicit major – is committed when the major term in the conclusion is universal but particular in the major premise.
Example:
All judges are lawyers.
Some professionals are not judges.
Therefore some professionals are not lawyers.
(d) Fallacy of illicit minor – is committed when the minor term in the conclusion is universal but particular in the minor premise.
Example:
All communists are subversive elements.
All communists are critics of the present administration.
Therefore, all critics of the present administration are subversive elements.
(e) Fallacy of negative premises – there must be at least one affirmative premise, as a rule. Violation of this rule constitutes a fallacy of negative premises.
Example:
Major Premise: No dogs are cats.
Minor Premise: No dogs are mice.
(No conclusion)
(f) Fallacy of particular premises – One of the premises must be universal. Violation of this rule gives rise to this fallacy.
Example:
Some politicians are Filipinos.
Some Cebuanos are not politicians.
Therefore, some Cebuanos are not Filipinos.
2. Formal fallacies in disjunctive syllogisms
3. Formal fallacies in hypothetical syllogisms
B. Material fallacies
1. The fallacy of equivocation
(a) The fallacy of quantity
(1) Fallacy of composition is committed when an attribute of a specific part is applied to the collective whole.
Example:
Jose is an intelligent boy.
Jose studies in Ateneo de Manila University.
Therefore, all who study in Ateneo are intelligent.
(2) Fallacy of division is committed when an attribute of a collective whole is applied to a specific part.
Example:
Logic students are good debaters.
John is a logic student.
Therefore, John is a good debater.
(b) The fallacy of quality
(1) Fallacy of simple accident
(2) Fallacy of converse accident proceeds from forming a general rule out of an insufficient amount of data or an incorrect interpretation of data.
Example:
Peter, my neighbor, won in the Bingo Pilipino.
James, my neighbour, also won in the Bingo Pilipino.
Therefore, we should play the Bingo Pilipino.
(3)Fallacy of specific accident is often called the “fallacy of ambiguous middle.”
Example:
Traffic is heavy every day.
Garry is a traffic policeman.
So, Garry is heavy.
2.The fallacy of presumption
(a)Begging the question
(1)Assumptio non- probata means the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise.
Example:
Everyone who cheats must be expelled.
Kim has cheated.
Hence, Kim must be expelled.
(2)Circulus in probando arises when the arguer uses two unproved propositions, each to establish the validity of the other.
Example:
The Bible is written by God because the Bible says so.
(b)Ignorantio elenchi
(1)Argumentum ad hominem can be committed when the listener attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the person or the character of the speaker rather than the content of his argument.
Example:
The speaker (who was a haunch back) on stage was delivering a speech in support of a certain political candidate.A certain person from the audience shouted saying, “How can you expect a straight reasoning from a crooked man?”
(2)Argumentum ad populum is committed when the claim being advanced by the speaker is emotionally convincing and eventually accommodated by the people or the audience.
Example:
Filipinos are lovers of peace and development.
Therefore, Filipinos would support the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) for joint military exercises.
(3)Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Example:
No one has proven it true that God wrote the bible.
Therefore, God is not the author of the bible.
No one has conclusively proven that there is no life on the moons of Jupiter.
Therefore, there is life on the moons of Jupiter.
(4)Argumentum ad verecundiam is committed when a speaker cites a claim grounded on a premise being made by an expert in an unrelated field.
Example:
The warrantless arrest of Sen. Honasan, Enrile, and Santiago is legal because Cardinal Sin said so.
(5)Argumentum ad baculum is committed when an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him if he does not accept the conclusion.
Example:
I believed that Carlos P. Romulo was the most intelligent UN Secretary General. And if you do not agree with this political belief, you will receive a grade of 5.0 in Forensics. Therefore, Carlos P. Romulo is the most intelligent UN Secretary General.
(6)Argumentum ex concessio is an argument from a previous admission. This fallacy arises when the disputant ignores the real question and asserts that his contention is valid because his opponent has previously admitted it to be so.
Example:
(c)Complex question involves a question that presumes another hidden question that makes it complex.
Example:
Question: Have you stopped visiting my wife?
Answer: Yes or No.
If the respondent answers the question with “yes,” then a conclusion can be presumed that, “The respondent had visited my wife, and now he stops.” And if the respondent answers the question with “no,” then a conclusion can be presumed that, “The respondent has been visiting my wife up to the present.”
(d)Non sequitor
(1)Simple non sequitor – arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise, without having a valid connection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the conclusion.
Example:
John is the most behave student in the class;
Therefore, he should be given the most tasks.
(2)False cause – post hoc, ergo propter hoc occurs when there is confusion in inferring cause-effect correlations.
Example:
Yesterday, I received a letter obliging me to write the same for fifty pieces. Days had passed and I failed to do so. I met an accident. Therefore, this letter must be mysterious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
