Practice question
An official holds a financial interest that an applicable law expressly prohibits, but did not intervene in the transaction. The defense insists that Section 3(h) always requires official intervention even under its prohibited-interest alternative. Which is sound?
- The statutory alternatives must be distinguished; the legally prohibited interest route is not identical to the official-intervention route.
- Official intervention is mandatory under both alternatives despite the disjunctive text.
- A legally prohibited interest is automatically lawful without intervention.
- Section 3(h) refers only to gifts.
- A statute prohibiting the interest is categorically irrelevant.
Legal references
- RA 3019, Sections 3(f), 3(h), 3(j), 3(k) and 4, substantive prohibited acts: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1960/ra_3019_1960.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.