In In re Nomination Petition of Paulmier, 594 Pa. 433, 937 A.2d 364 (2007), the candidate's petitions were challenged solely on the basis of his statement of financial interests because, in Block No. 10 of the form, the candidate listed "rental income" without specifying the source. Id. at 438, 937 A.2d at 367. Specifically, the objection was grounded in the candidate's failure to disclose the addresses of several rental properties and the names of tenants who had paid $ 1,300 or more in rent during the previous year, even though the form did disclose that the candidate's occupation was "housing specialist" and listed "rental income" as a source of income. Id. The trial court, sitting as a three-judge panel, granted the petition to set aside. In a single-judge opinion, this Court affirmed the trial court, noting the "fatal defect" rule in Anastasio. Paulmier, 594 Pa. at 438, 937 A.2d at 367. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this Court's order and vacated the trial court's order. See Id. at 448, 937 A.2d at 373. Chief Justice Cappy, in an opinion in which Justice Eakin, Justice Baldwin, Justice Fitzgerald, Justice Baer, and Justice Castille joined, acknowledged the existence of "two competing cases" interpreting the "fatal defect" rule: Anastasio, which required strict compliance with the Ethics Act; and Benninghoff, which allowed amendments to a statement of financial interests under certain circumstances. Id. at 441, 937 A.2d at 369. The Supreme Court noted that the two statutory schemes, the Election Code and the Ethics Act are to be read in pari materia. Id. at 441, 937 A.2d at 369. "The Ethics Act states that failure to file a statement of financial interests in accordance with the provisions of the Act is a fatal defect for a petition to appear on the ballot." Id. While the Ethics Act seeks to promote full financial disclosure, the Election Code requires a more liberal construction in order to protect a candidate's right to run for public office. Id. The Court found the "divergence" between the Anastasio per se rule and the Benninghoff substantial compliance rule to be "irreconcilable" when looked at separately under either the Ethics Act or the Election Code. However, the Court went on to state that: When the language of the Ethics Act is tempered by the language of the Election Code, it is clear that the intent of the Legislature is to encourage both full financial disclosure and protect voter choice. Read together, the Legislative intent is clearly best served by a rule that allows a timely filer to amend in order to come into full compliance giving the public both the benefit of full financial disclosure and the broadest choice of representatives. Paulmier, 594 Pa. at 445, 937 A.2d at 371. Accordingly, the Court held that the "fatal defect" rule was only intended to bar those candidates from appearing on the ballot who failed to file a statement of financial interests, or who filed a statement of financial interests in an untimely manner. Id. Any other defect as to substance, even if the defect is apparent on the face of the form, may be amended so long as the amendment is done in a "timely manner." Id. "In other words, all defects related to the content of disclosures on a timely filed statement of financial interests are subject to timely amendment." Id. Furthermore, the Court found it "important" to note that the Ethics Act requires a statement of financial interests to "be provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the person required to file. This means that candidates must still file in good faith, even though they do have an opportunity to amend. See 65 Pa. C.S. 1105(a). See also 65 Pa. C.S. 1107(5)." Id. at 371 n.3.