The fact the prosecutor Tañada alludes the notion that the Senate is the venue for the CJ to disprove the charges hurled against him is not only resorting to "Shifting the burden of proof" but it is also smacking of the "Fallacy of presupposition". It essentially begs for an explanation for something which is not yet established. Why on Earth should the case be about "disproving" the charges? The charges have not been proven yet to be true, so what is there to disprove?
No comments:
Post a Comment