Introduction
(1) Importance of Legal Language and Legal
Reasoning Walker, Vern R. (2007)
“Discovering the Logic of Legal Reasoning,”
Legal reasoning – the reasoning involved in
interpreting constitutions, statutes, and
regulations, in balancing fundamental
principles and policies, in adopting and
modifying legal rules, in applying those rules to
cases, in evaluating evidence, and in making
ultimate decisions.
3 pragmatic dimensions of legal reasoning:
• Our reasoning is action-oriented.
• It balances the "epistemic objective" of
law against the applicable "non-
epistemic objectives.”
• Legal decision-making occurs in real
time, uses limited resources, and is
usually based on incomplete
information.
Three types or areas of legal reasoning:
• Rule-based reasoning
2 features: 1) – distinction between prima
facie case and affirmative defense; 2)
possibility of changing the rules themselves
as the result of the reasoning
• Evidence Evaluation
Deciding which evidence is relevant to
which issues of facts;
Evaluating the probative value of the
relevant evidence and making findings of
fact based on that evidence and principles
for the inferential aspects
• Second-order reasoning
Process rules allow the decision-making
process to be dynamic, participatory, and
interactive, while ensuring that the process
serves the rule of law and the appropriate
balance of epistemic and non-epistemic
objectives.
2 Types of Process Decisions:
• Procedural rules – orchestrate the
dynamics and timing of the decision-
making process.
• Evidentiary address – issues about the
evaluation of evidence, such as the
admissibility of evidence, the legal
sufficiency of evidence, and burdens and
standards of proof
Language Evolution and Logic
• “Thinking like a lawyer” – knowing how to
use legal concepts to formulate those lines
of reasoning that are acceptable to lawyers
• Logic of legal reasoning – studies the
patterns of legal language that
professionals generally regard as
appropriate
• Study of legal logic – study of appropriate
use of legal language
• Legal language and reasoning are evolving
Friedrich Waismann and the Distinctive
Logic of Legal Language
• Friedrich Waismann developed the idea of
open texture.
• No concept and no term in any language
can ever be definitively precise
• Open texture –not vagueness but rather the
in eliminable possibility of vagueness for
even those terms that appear to be (and
are) maximally precise (non-vague) at any
given time
• Vagueness vs. open texture:
Vagueness - Actual vagueness
Open texture - potential vagueness
• Anti-reductionism in language
Legal language might have a logic and a grammar
of its own, a logic and a grammar derived from the
particular functions that law is designed to serve
• The core of Waismann’s idea is the claim
that certain uses of language may have
rules and structures – and not merely
semantics -- that depart from ordinary
language.
• Different natural or ordinary languages
have different grammatical, syntactic, or
semantic structures.
• Different linguistic communities may have
not only different meanings but also
different deeper linguistic structures, as with
the languages that treat the prepositional
form as something appended by way of
endings to other words rather than by
separate words,
• Different professional or disciplinary sub-
communities may also have their own
languages, just as different geographic or
ethnic or political communities may have
their own languages.
• Question of technical language, and of the
relationship between technical and ordinary
language
• Legal language as a potentially or
partly technical language
• Can law simply change its definitions
to meet changed circumstances,
much as Waismann appears to
recommend for many other linguistic
domains?
• Law, is different. Law speaks to two
audiences for lawyers and judges
and directly to citizens
• The legal system may not possess the
ability to change its definitions in the face of
an instance of manifested open texture, as
Waismann argued was and must be the
case for the language of science.
• Different disciplinary languages might have
different logics and different structures as
well as (some) different meanings, is that
the very nature of law and legal decision-
making makes the language of the law as
different from ordinary language as the
language of quantum mechanics is different
from ordinary language.
• Legal language is, in most cases, ordinary
language, but that ordinary language,
whether in law or elsewhere, exists subject
to unstated “normal conditions”
qualifications.
Philippines v. China, PCA Case No 2013-19,
July 12, 2016
(Note: Focus on the terminologies used like
“islands” or “rocks”)
Sr. Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio,
“The South China Sea Dispute: Philippine
Sovereign Rights and Jurisdiction,” Ateneo
de Naga Law, November 24, 2017.
Core Issue of the SCS dispute:
• China claims 80% of PH EEZ
• Gravest external threat to the PH since
WWII
Two faces of the SCS dispute:
 Legal: Arbitration Ruling
 Physical: Enforcement of the ruling
Why does South China Sea matter?
• China: Economic & military purposes; to
sustain China’s demand for fish (largest in
the world) & to build a base that will counter
attack US missiles
• Philippines: Economic; extraction of oil,
gas, methane hydrates supposed to replace
for Malampaya gas when it runs out in less
than 10 years
• United Staters & other foreign countries:
Freedom of overflight and navigation
War is not an option
 Our Constitution prohibits [aggressive]
war.
 We do not have the military means to
wage war against China
Real and practical option for the Philippines:
• Talk with china while taking effective
measures to fortify the arbitral ruling
• Talk with China on the COC, on the
Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea
(CUES) for naval and coast guard
vessels, on conservation of fish stocks,
on preservation of the marine
environment, on how our fishermen can
fish in Scarborough Shoal, and on
safety at sea. There are many other
things to talk with China on the South
China Sea even if China refuses to
discuss the arbitral ruling.
• File an action for damages against
China
• Raise this interest in the United Nations
general assembly by sponsoring a
resolution
Strong political will is the key:
• There must first be a strong political will
on the part of our government to
advance our interest.
• Third party states have started to show
their support.
• We won the legal aspect of this battle;
we have to assert our right or else we
will lose it through the Doctrine of
Acquisition
A. Legal Basis
(1) Constitution, Art. VIII, sec. 14
 state:
No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.
(2) Rule 36, sec. 1
 beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final
orders. — A judgment or final order:
determining the merits of the case
shall be in writing
personally and directly prepared by the
judge
stating clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based
signed by him
and filed with the clerk of the court.
(3) Rule 120, sec. 2

Section 2. Contents of the judgment:
If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state:
(1) the legal qualification of the offense
constituted by the acts committed by the
accused and the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances which attended
its commission;
(2) the participation of the accused in
the offense, whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory after the fact;
(3) the penalty imposed upon the
accused; and
(4) the civil liability or damages caused
by his wrongful act or omission to be
recovered from the accused by the
offended party, if there is any, unless
the enforcement of the civil liability by a
separate civil action has been reserved
or waived.
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall
1) whether the evidence of the
prosecution absolutely failed to
prove the guilt of the accused; or
2) merely failed to prove his guilt
In either case, the judgment shall determine if
the act or omission from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. (2a)

(4) SC Administrative Circular No. 1 dated
Jan. 28, 1988
IMPLEMENTATION OF SEC. 12, ART. XVIII
OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
5. Decision-Writing:
5.1 All Presiding Judges must observe
scrupulously the periods prescribed in
Art. VIII, Sec. 15 of the Constitution.
5.2 All judges are reminded that the
Supreme Court has applied the "Res
Ipsa Loquitur" rule in the removal of
judges even without any formal
investigation whenever a decision, on its
face, indicates gross incompetence or
gross ignorance of the law or gross
misconduct.
5.3 Judges should make complete
findings of facts in their decision, and
scrutinize closely the legal aspects of
the case in the light of the evidence
presented. They should avoid the
tendency to "generalize and to form
conclusion without detailing the facts
from which such conclusions are
deduced."
(5) Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 –
3.01 and 3.02
CANON 3
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL
DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH
IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE
ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law
and maintain professional competence.
RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall
endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and
the applicable law unswayed by partisan
interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.
(6) Due Process and Fair Play
People v. Bugarin, G.R. No. 110817-22, June
13, 1997

FACTS: Marcelino Bugarin was found guilty of
four counts of consummated rape and one
count of attempted rape. He assailed the trial
court’s decision on the ground that the decision
does not state the facts and law upon which it
was based.
HELD: The requirement that the decisions of
courts must be in writing and that they must set
forth clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which they are based serves many
functions. It is intended, among other things, to
inform the parties of the reason or reasons for
the decision so that if any of them appeals, he
can point out to the appellate court the findings
of facts or the rulings on points of law with
which he disagrees. More than that, the
requirement is an assurance to the parties that,
in reaching judgment, the judge did so through
the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a
safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge,
preventing him from deciding by ipse dexit.
Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by
the Constitution but nonetheless vested with
the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment
on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen,
the judge must ultimately depend on the power
of reason for sustained public confidence in the
justness of his decision. The decision of the
trial court in this case disrespects the judicial
function.
Yao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132428,
October 24, 2000
Velarde v. SJS, G.R. No. 159357, April 28,
2004
FACTS: SJS, a registered political party,
sought the interpretation of several
constitutional provisions, specifically on the
separation of church and state; and a
declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of
the acts of religious leaders endorsing a
candidate for an elective office, or urging or
requiring the members of their flock to vote for
a specified candidate. In its Decision, the trial
court failed to include a dispositive portion.
HELD: A decision that does not conform to the
form and substance required by the
Constitution and the law is void and deemed
legally inexistent. To be valid, decisions should
comply with the form, the procedure and the
substantive requirements laid out in the
Constitution, the Rules of Court and relevant
circulars/orders of the Supreme Court.
Dispositive part of the decision or order is the
investitive or controlling factor that determines
and settles the rights of the parties and the
questions presented therein, notwithstanding
the existence of statements or declaration in
the body of said order that may be confusing.
Where there is a conflict between the
dispositive part and the opinion, the former
must prevail over the latter on the theory that
the dispositive portion is the final order while
the opinion is merely a statement ordering
nothing.
It is likewise demanded by the due process
clause of the Constitution. The parties to a
litigation should be informed of how it was
decided, with an explanation of the factual and
legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the
court. The court cannot simply say that
judgment is rendered in favor of X and against
Y and just leave it at that without any
justification whatsoever for its action.
Fundamental Requirements of a Decision:
1. Statement of the Case
The Statement of the Case consists of a legal
definition of the nature of the action.
2. Statement of Fact
 Objective or reportorial method
o the judge summarizes, without
comment, the testimony of each
witness and the contents of each
exhibit
 Synthesis method
o the factual theory of the plaintiff
or prosecution and then that of
the defendant or defense is
summarized according to the
judge’s best light
 Subjective method
o the version of the facts accepted
by the judge is simply narrated
without explaining what the
parties’ versions are
 In criminal cases, it is better to present
both the version of the prosecution and
that of the defense, in the interest of
fairness and due process.
 In appealed civil cases, the opposing
sets of facts no longer need to be
presented.
3. Issues or Assignment of Errors
 Both factual and legal issues should be
stated.
4. The Court’s Ruling
 Contains a full discussion of the specific
errors or issues raised in the complaint,
petition or appeal, as the case may be;
as well as of other issues the court
deems essential to a just disposition of
the case.
5. The Disposition or Dispositive Portion
 In a criminal case, the disposition should
include a finding of innocence or guilt,
the specific crime committed, the
penalty imposed, the participation of the
accused, the modifying circumstances if
any, and the civil liability and costs
 In a civil case as well as in a special civil
action, the disposition should state
whether the complaint or petition is
granted or denied, the specific relief
granted, and the costs.
B. Legal Development 


(1) Progression of Legal Reasoning


(2) Living Tree Doctrine

A doctrine of constitutional interpretation that
says that a constitution is organic and must
be read in a broad and progressive manner
so as to adapt it to the changing times.
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assn. v. Ramos, G.R.
No. 127882, January 27, 2004.
 confine foreign corporations to financial or
FACTS:
 RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995)
defines the modes of mineral agreements
for mining operations and outlines the
procedures for their filing and approval,
assignment, transfer and withdrawal and
fixes their terms.
 FTAA with WMCP covering 99,387 hectares
of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat,
Davao del Sur and North Cotabato
 DENR Secretary issued the IRR of RA 7942
 Petitioner demand that DENR stop the
implementation of RA 7942
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7942 is
constitutional
HELD: (Panganiban’s ponencia)
• RA 7942 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
• Violates Article XII Sec 2 of the 1987
Constitution:
• The exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources shall
be under the full control and
supervision of the State
• Absence of the provision in 1935 and 1973
Consti authorizing the State to grant
licenses, concession or leases for the
exploration, exploitation, development or
utilization of natural resources.
• By such omission, the utilization of
inalienable lands of the public domain
through license, concession or lease is no
longer allowed
PANGANIBAN’S SEPARATE OPINION:
• Petition should be dismissed by reason of
MOOTNESS
• The FTAA is now implemented by a Filipino
corporation
• RA 7942 is constitutional
• If the intention of the drafters were strictly to
technical assistance and nothing more,
their language would have
been unmistakably restrictive and
stringent.
• e.g. Foreign corporations are prohibited from
providing management or other forms of
assistance, or words to that effect.
• The conscious avoidance of restrictive
wording bespeaks an intent not to employ --
in an exclusionary, inflexible and limiting
manner -- the expression agreements
involving technical or financial assistance.
Constitutional Interpretation and the
Vagaries of Contemporary Events:
• The Concom did not mean to tie the hands of
the President and restrict the latter only to
agreements on rigid financial and technical
assistance and nothing else.
• The Constitution would have to be a living
document that would answer the needs of
 the nation well into the future. Thus, the
unerring emphasis on flexibility and
adaptability.
• Constitutions are designed to meet not
only the vagaries of contemporary
events. They should be interpreted to cover
even future and unknown circumstances. It
is to the credit of its drafters that a
Constitution can withstand the assaults of
bigots and infidels but at the same time
bend with the refreshing winds of change
necessitated by unfolding events
Edwards v A.G Canada [1930] AC 123, 1
DLR 98 [PC] (Canada).
FACTS: The appellants brought the case
before the court to have the SCC rule that
based on s.24 women could be considered
candidates for the Senate. The first decision
was that women were excluded from the
meaning of “persons.”
ISSUE: Do the words “qualified persons” in s.
24 of the BNA Act 1867 include women? And
therefore are women eligible to be called and
become members of the senate?
HELD:The use of the word “persons” on s.24
includes both males and females. Therefore
women are eligible to be summoned to and
become members of the Senate.
RATIO: When determining the meaning of a
particular word in an Act of Parliament you
must consider:
The external evidence derived from extraneous
circumstances such as previous legislation and
decided cases and the internal evidence
derived from the Act itself
The BNA act planted in Canada a living tree
capable of growth and expansion within its
natural limits. (paragraph 44) – Constitution
should be given a large and liberal
meaning.
Ambiguous language should be constructed in
favor of inclusion
(3) Manifest Dynamic
 Obergefell v.
Hodges, No. 14-556, June 26, 2015, 576 U.S.
___ (2015), 

FACTS: Groups of same-sex couples sued
their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan,
Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the
constitutionality of those states' bans on same-
sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal
same-sex marriages that occurred in
jurisdictions that provided for such marriages.
HELD: Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment guarantees the right to marry as
one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and
that analysis applies to same-sex couples in
the same manner as it does to opposite-sex
couples.
Judicial precedent has held that the right to
marry is a fundamental liberty because it is
inherent to the concept of individual autonomy,
it protects the most intimate association
between two people, it safeguards children and
families by according legal recognition to
building a home and raising children, and it has
historically been recognized as the keystone of
social order.
Because there are no differences between a
same-sex union and an opposite-sex union
with respect to these principles, the exclusion
of same-sex couples from the right to marry
violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Role of Lawyers 

(1) UN Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers

Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990
• Access to lawyers and legal services
• Special safeguards in criminal justice
matters
 • Qualifications and training
• Duties and responsibilities
• Guarantees for the functioning of
lawyers
• Freedom of expression and association
• Professional associations of lawyers
• Judges should exercise their contempt
powers for correction and preservation, not
for retaliation or vindication.
• The court must utilize, to the fullest extent,
soundness and clarity of reasoning, and
must not appear to have been swayed by
momentary fits of temper.
(3) “To dare where even justices fear to
tread.” 


• Disciplinary Proceedings • “to dare when even angels fear to tread”

(2) Sereno, J. (Dissenting Opinion), A.M. No. • To have no hesitation in tackling a

10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011 situation that even the wisest of judges
(justices) would avoid
FACTS: 37 members of the faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law
published a statement on the allegations of
plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to
the Court’s decision in Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary. Essentially, the faculty of the UP
College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty.
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation
of Justice Del Castillo in the face of allegations
of plagiarism in his work.

HELD: Issuance of show cause order

resolution to the respondents (UP Law Faculty)
as to why they should not be disciplined as
members of the Bar per issues stated above.

SERENO’s DISSENT:

• By issuing the Show Cause Order, the Court

puts itself in the precarious position of
shackling free speech and expression.
• The negative public exposure caused by
such acts of plagiarism cannot be attributed
solely to the UP Law Faculty.
• The responses published by different sectors
constituted nothing more than an exercise
of free speech – critical commentary calling
a public official to task in the exercise of his
functions.
• Despite the assertion that the present case is
merely an exercise of the Court’s
disciplinary authority over members of the
bar, a closer look reveals the true nature of
the proceeding as one for indirect contempt