Practice question
A legislator’s prohibited counsel appearance is challenged. The legislator then acquires a minimal client interest and seeks to perform substantially the same advocacy through intervention as a device. What principle does Puyat supply?
- The court examines substance and may reject the indirect circumvention
- Every nominal interest conclusively authorizes the same advocacy
- The purchase automatically overrides the Constitution
- Only the share certificate’s color matters
- Only the legislative recess matters
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution ArticleVI Section14: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Puyat v De Guzman, GRL-51122, March25,1982, MAIN opinion, anti-circumvention holding under predecessor constitutional provision, read with current ArticleVI Section14: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/mar1982/gr_l-51122_1982.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.