In support of this contention, Appellees move for permission to supplement the record with the Certification Affidavit of the Office of the County Board of Elections certifying that the voters approved the amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter on November 2, 1999. 2 Appellees argue that pursuant to Section 19 of the Home Rule Act, any challenge to the procedure by which the amendment to the existing home rule charter was approved becomes moot and cannot be entertained by a court, and the amendment cannot be invalidated based upon alleged procedural defects in the approval process, once the election is over. Appellants contend in their motion requesting permission to file a supplemental brief that Section 19 of the Home Rule Act has been suspended for appellate purposes. Appellants point out that this Court has jurisdiction of appeals from final order of the courts of common pleas with respect to home rule charters, local ordinances or resolutions. Appellants argue that Section 19 of the Home Rule Act affects the jurisdiction of this Court.
Appellants also point to Pa.
Accordingly, Appellants contend, at least for appellate purposes, Section 19 of the Home Rule Act is suspended and cannot be considered in any mootness argument. By virtue of the plain language of Section 19 of the Home Rule Act, it is clear that Section 19 does not vest jurisdiction in a court. Section 19 is merely a safe harbor provision created by the General Assembly to prevent a cause of action challenging the procedural requirements of the Home Rule Act once an election has been held. Thus, Section 19 is not a jurisdictional act. For this reason, we also reject Appellants' argument that Section 19 of the Home Rule Act is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and therefore suspended for appellate purposes.