Deduction (General-To-Particular Reasoning) – Group 2 Legal Technique and Logic

The history of deductive reasoning comes from the history of scientific method. Among the Greeks, it was
Aristotle who was responsible for the introduction of scientific method. Aristotle largely ignored inductive
reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry and while induction was sufficient for discovering
universals by generalization, it did not succeed in identifying causes. The tool Aristotle used for this was
deductive reasoning. Using the syllogism, scientists could infer new universal truths from those already
established.

In law, deductive reasoning means reasoning based on a general rule of law to determine the appropriate
outcome in a specific case:

 Judges use deductive reasoning to come to a legal conclusion based on a general rule
 The law's reliance on the doctrine of precedent is an example itself of deductive reasoning.
 Deductive reasoning says that if something is true of a class of things in general, this truth will
apply to all members of that class.

Parts:
Major Premise – the universal class, not challenged and assumed to be true
Minor Premise – less universal class
Conclusion – the new idea arrived based on the major premise and minor premise

Example:
Major Premise - All mammals are warm-blooded.
Minor Premise - Doug is a mammal.
Conclusion - Therefore, Doug is warm-blooded.

Using deductive reasoning usually is a credible and 'safe' form of reasoning, but is based on the assumed
truth of the rule or law on which it is founded. Deductive reasoning assumes that the basic law from which
you are arguing is applicable in all cases. This can let you take a rule and apply it perhaps where it was
not really meant to be applied.

Deductive reasoning applies legal principles to a particular case. The relevant legal principles are applied
to the facts of a particular case by deduction.

- Major Premise - All contracts with vague terms are void. (Legal Principle)
Minor Premise - The contract in the present case has a vague term. (Fact)
Conclusion - Therefore, the contract in the present case is void.(Judgment)

A legal principle comprises the syllogism's major premise, the facts of a particular case comprise
the syllogism's minor premise, and the court's judgment comprises the syllogism's conclusion.

Examples - Philippine Jurisprudence:

Civil Liberties vs Executive Secretary G.R. No. 83896

Major Premise - Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that “The President, Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure…”
Minor Premise - Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987
states that “a member of the Cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of
the Executive Department may, in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in the
government and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensation therefor…”
Conclusion – Therefore, Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional.
Antonio vs Reyes G.R. No. 155800

Major Premise - the personal examination of a subject by the physician is not required for the spouse to
be declared psychologically incapacitated
Minor Premise - In this case, Ivonne was accused of being psychologically incapacitated
Conclusion - Ivonee need not to be examined by physicians to be declared psychologically
incapacitated

References

Learning Law. (n.d.). Accessed November 18, 2014. From http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law-

essentials/learn/reasoning.php

Granberg , Ronald S. (2012). Legal Reasoning. Introduction to Law Legal Reasoning Article. From
http://www.granberglaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/legal_reasoning.pdf