ROUGHING OUT

THE ARGUMENT
LESSON 4
BALANCED PRESENTATION
SITUATION:
A son failed in one of his major subjects in law school because he
spent too much time with his barkadas. His father warned him
about such a result but he did not mind him. When it happened,
the father was so angry that he refused to give the son money for
re-enrollment. The son approaches his father to plead his case
with him.
If you were son, how would you present your case?
COMPARE THE FOLLOWING:

RESPONSE #1:
Dad, I want to re-enroll this semester. I would be happy if you
let me re-enroll, dad, despite what happened.
If you don’t let me re-enroll, I will surely be unable to finish
my studies. How could you do that to me?
COMPARE THE FOLLOWING:
RESPONSE #2:

Dad, please consider letting me re-enroll. I made a mistake when I ignored

your warnings concerning my barkadas. I hope you would forgive me.

I really miscalculated my chances in that subject. But as you can see, I

passed my other major subjects with high grades. I have learned my lesson
and I promise not to repeat my mistake. In fact, as you can see, I have
stopped going out with my barkadas altogether.

Dad, could you give me another chance?

STRUCTURE OF A BALANCED PRESENTATION

First - A clear statement of your thesis or where you stand on the

issue to be resolved.
Second - The arguments that can be made against your position but
with an explanation that those arguments do not doom such position.
Third - The arguments in favor of your position.
Fourth - An appeal to the good sense of the person or persons who
will resolve the issue.
PLAN AND ROUGH OUT THE BALANCED APPROACH TO YOUR
ARGUMENTS BEFORE WRITING THEM UP

Doing this will aid you in scouting the terrain that your
writing will cover, aided by a map in your hand. You will be
able to see the relevance, strengths and weaknesses of your
arguments and decide how to most effectively present them
when you write.
How do you rough out your arguments so that you could see a
broad picture of how they look when they are finished?

Since the main thing in roughing out your arguments is to

see how they balance, use a “BALANCE SHEET FORMAT”
THE BALANCE SHEET FORMAT
In crafting arguments, you need to be guided by your thesis statement
or proposition.

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Rather than the statement of the issue, the thesis statement

represents the goal you set for your arguments. It will give the
direction in shaping and giving color to your arguments.
THE BALANCE SHEET FORMAT
In crafting arguments, you need to be guided by your thesis statement
or proposition.

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA
Arguments Against You Arguments in Your Favor

Appeal to your reader’s good sense

ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT
Where will you get the arguments with which you will fill
up your balance sheet?

First, one should understand what an argument is.

An argument is a reason you offer to prove your thesis or
proposition.
THE ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT

EXAMPLE #1:

Dad, please consider letting me re-enroll. I made a mistake when I ignored

your warnings concerning my barkadas. I hope you would forgive me.

I really miscalculated my chances in that subject. But as you can see, I

passed my other major subjects with high grades. I have learned my lesson
and I promise not to repeat my mistake. In fact, as you can see, I have
stopped going out with my barkadas altogether.

Dad, could you give me another chance?

THE ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT

EXAMPLE #2: THE RAPE CASE OF JULIA AND RONALD

LINK: shorturl.at/LUVX3

What reason can be offered to prove your thesis correct?

(Note: You are Ronald Galang’s lawyer)

Eventhough Mario lived near where the rape suppossedly took place, he did
not hear Julia’s outcry.

Is this a good reason? Yes, because it makes sense.

ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT
The great bulk of work in legal arguments are in the
mold of classic categorical syllogism.
EXAMPLE:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Jose is a man.
Conclusion: Jose is mortal.
ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT

The Major Premise, “All men are mortal,” is a

statement of a generally accepted rule or truth.
ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT

The Minor Premise, “Jose is a man,” is a

statement that brings a particular thing or
individual within the class or situtation covered
by the generally accepted rule or truth.
ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT

The Conclusion, “Jose is mortal,” is a statement

that follows after the major and minor premises,
deducing that the generally accepted rule or
truth applies to the particular thing or
individual.
ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT
Example #2:
Arguing from common experience, a witness can be
discredited in this manner.
People who lie cannot be believed.
Armando lied in his testimony.
Therefore, he cannot be believed.
ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT

Understand that every sound legal argument is a

combination of the right rule and the right fact.

For example, what your argument can make if your

thesis or proposition is “Jose should be punished for
crossing the red light.”
ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT
First, State the rule that Crossing the red light is
punishable by law.
Second, State the fact in Jose’s case that Jose crossed
the red light.
Third, State your conclusion that “Therefore, Jose
should be punished by law.”
To sum up:
Crossing the red light is punishable by law.
Jose crossed the red light.
Therefore, Jose should be punished by law.
To sum up:
Crossing the red light is punishable by law. (Rule)
Jose crossed the red light. (Fact)
Therefore, Jose should be punished by law. (Conclusion)
THE KEY FACT IN RULES
The rule statement has a fact component for its
subject.
This fact component of the rule is the “key fact.”
It is key fact because its presence in the case opens up
such case to the application of the rule.
Example 1:
Crossing the red light is punishable by law. (Rule)
Jose crossed the red light. (Fact)
Therefore, Jose should be punished by law. (Conclusion)
Example 2:
Any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of person nor force upon things, shall
take the property of another without the latter’s consent,
shall be punished for theft.
Cesar took, with intent to gain, Mario’s cellphone from his
desk when his back was turned and without his consent.
Consequently, Cesar shall be punished for theft.
ARGUING IN THE NEGATIVE
First, State the general rule.
Second, Add an interpretative rule that excludes the
application of the general rule.
Third, State the fact.
Fourth, State your conclusion.
ARGUING IN THE NEGATIVE
First, State the general rule.
Crossing the red light is punishable by law.
Second, Add an interpretative rule that excludes the
application of the general rule.
“...but crossing the yellow light does not amount to
crossing the red light.”
ARGUING IN THE NEGATIVE

Crossing the red light is punishable by law. But crossing

the yellow light does not amount to crossing the red
light. Jose actually crossed a yellow light. Therefore, Jose
cannot be punished by the law.
THE CASE FACT

The fact of a particular case determines what will

govern it.
Thus, when preparing the argument, begin by
ascertaining the fact or facts of the case.
MEANING OF “RULE”
The “rule” includes legislated rules such as:
● Constitutional provisions
● Statutory provisions
● Rules of Court
It also includes case laws or judicial precedents.
Judicial precedents are the most convenient source
of arguments.
MEANING OF “RULE”
Example: Defense of “Alibi” was invoked.
You can easily put it down by invoking an abundance of
jurisprudence.
The defense of alibi, as a rule, is considered with suspicion and is
always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak
and unreliable, but also because it can be easily fabricated. (People
vs. Paraiso 349 SCRA 335). Alibi cannot prevail over positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses who
have no motive to lie. (People vs. Lovedorial 349 SCRA 402)
MEANING OF “RULE”
Example: Defense of “Alibi” was invoked.
Counter-argument
Alibi can be believed where it can be shown that the accused
wat at another place at the time of the commission of the
offense and it was physically impossible for him to be at the
place where it happened. (People vs. Plana 370 SCRA 542). And
when the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the
accused, alibi assumes importance. (People vs. Morales, 363
SCRA 342)
MEANING OF “RULE”
The “rule” also includes widely accepted truths that derive
from logic, common sense, or even common experience.
Example #1: Invoking self-defense.
Accused invoked self-defense. But evidence shows that the
victim died of gunshot wound on his back.

Common sense dictates that that shooting the victim on the

back is incompatible with defending oneself.
CREATIVE THINKING

When legislated rules and court precedents to

support your proposition has been exhausted,
Be creative.
CREATIVE THINKING
First, Get all the data and inputs.
Second, Pose the problem to your mind. Ask, “How
can I prove that Ronald did not rape Julia?”
Third, forget about the case. Take time out and let
your subconscious mind do the work.
ACTIVITY 1 - Rape Case Torres vs. Galang - https://bit.ly/3BB0Mwu
The class will be divided into 4 groups.
Two (2) will be counsels for the accused, the other two (2) for the victim.
Research and craft out your arguments. Use the given format.
Duration: 30 minutes
(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)
RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA
Arguments Against You Arguments in Your Favor

Appeal to Your Reader’s Good Sense

 ACTIVITY 1
CRAFTING OUT THE ARGUMENTS
Torres vs. Galang - https://bit.ly/3BB0Mwu
 ACTIVITY 1
Links (Use your JMC Emails)
Group 1 - shorturl.at/gQUY9
Group 2 - shorturl.at/acSUZ
Group 3 - shorturl.at/hmWZ5
Group 4 - shorturl.at/DLS68
ACTIVITY 1 - Possible Arguments (Counsels of the Accused)

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Arguments Against You Arguments in Your Favor

Vaginal lacerations usually found As a virgin, Julia could have vaginal

in rape victims were found in Julia. lacerations during consented sex.
ACTIVITY 1 - Possible Arguments (Counsels of the Accused)

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Arguments Against You Arguments in Your Favor

Ronald was only a suitor of Julia. Ronald and Julia were

Ronald’s claim in uncorroborated, it sweethearts. Being sweethearts, it
is self-serving since Julia never was not likely for Ronald to rape
admitted it. Being only a suitor, he Julia.
is capable of committing the crime.
ACTIVITY 1 - Possible Arguments (Counsels of the Accused)

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Arguments Against You Arguments in Your Favor

Because women will rarely admit to But not when the woman’s
having been raped unless true, a testimony, like that of Julia, is
rape victim’s testimony can stand inherently incredible.
alone.
ACTIVITY 1 - Possible Arguments (Counsels of the Accused)

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Arguments Against You Arguments in Your Favor

Absence of bruises on her body

despite rough grounds negates
rape by use of force.
ACTIVITY 1 - Possible Arguments (Counsels of the Accused)

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Arguments Against You Arguments in Your Favor

Being a barrio woman, it is likely

that someone like Ronald walked
her home at that late hour.
ACTIVITY 1 - Possible Arguments (Counsels of the Accused)

(WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Appeal to Your Reader’s Good Sense

It is but fair that testimony inconsistent with common experience is

not believed.
ARGUMENTS THAT BUILD UP

Apart from being able to form a combination of

the right “rule” and the right “case fact” to support
your proposition, here are other arguments that
you can use to build up your issue:
 ARGUMENTS THAT BUILD UP (Counsel for the Accused)
(a) The favorable testimony comes from a credible
witness.
(b) The party’s version is inherently incredible and
consistent with common experience.
(c) All the elements or requisites of a valid claim or
defense have been proved.
ARGUMENTS THAT DESTROY

When the opposite party invokes the wrong rule or

that he has failed to prove the “case fact”
component of one’s argument. Examples are:
 ARGUMENTS THAT DESTROY (Counsel for the Accused)
(a) The argument raised is irrelevant.
(b) The argument has little weight given the other
considerations in the case.
(c) The argument is baseless.
(d) The argument is contrary to common experience.
(e) The argument is inconsistent with undeniable facts.
(f) The argument is inconsistent with a prior claim.
SUMMARY OF PRE-WORK

Pre-work consists of the following steps:

(1) Ascertaining the legal dispute.
(2) Making an outline of the relevant facts.
(3) Knowing the laws or rules that apply.
(4) Identifying the issues to be addressed; and
(5) Roughing out the arguments to be used.
ASSIGNMENT

Rough out the arguments in the

Case of a Child and the Neighbor’s Dog
https://bit.ly/3S05dpZ
Use the Balance Sheet Format.