Practice question
Explain why a nominal intervention device does not necessarily avoid a legislator’s counsel-appearance restriction, using Puyat with the current Constitution.
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.