Oral argument before this Court was held on May 6, 1991, following which we entered, on May 10, 1991, a per curiam order reversing the order of the Commonwealth Court, thus permitting the candidates' names to appear on the primary ballot. 527 Pa. 284, 590 A.2d 752 (1991). We noted that an opinion would follow.

"Our narrow issue then becomes whether a timely filing with a borough official is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Ethics Act and sufficient to meet the requirements of the Election Code. "After reviewing the legal arguments, the Court feels it necessary to address the heated contest as to whether [ In re Petition ofCioppa, 590 A.2d 821 (Pa.Commw. 1991), rev'd per curiam, 527 Pa. 284, 590 A.2d 752 (1991) (without opinion), supplemented, 533 Pa. 564, 626 A.2d 146 (1993),] is in fact binding precedent. "It is apparent to this Court, that the Commonwealth Court Opinion was explicitly [reversed] by the Supreme Court in a per curiam order.

Attaching a copy of the statement to the nominating petition alone and filing it with the county election board will obviously not satisfy both filing requirements under the Ethics Act. The facts in this present appeal are nearly identical to those before this Court in In re Petition of Cioppa, 590 A.2d 821 (Pa. Commw. 1991), rev'd per curiam, 527 Pa. 284, 590 A.2d 752 (1991) (without opinion), supplemented, 533 Pa. 564, 626 A.2d 146 (1993). In Cioppa, three prospective candidates for council seats in the Borough of Braddock Hills purported to "file" the required financial interest statements by hand-delivering them, via one particular candidate, to a Braddock Hills council member prior to the filing deadline.