Short answer. Eighteen legible copies, with the original accompanied by certified true copies of the relevant portions of the record and other supporting papers, and a copy served on the petitioner; no further pleading may be filed unless the Court requires or allows it.

What the law says

The comments of the respondents shall be filed in eighteen legible copies. The original shall be accompanied by certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein together with other supporting papers.

Rule 64, Section 7 — Comments of respondents. Read the full provision →

Matching the petitioner's filing burden

Just as the petitioner must file eighteen legible copies of the petition, the respondents' comment must also be filed in eighteen legible copies. This parallel copy requirement keeps the case record complete and consistent for however many justices or staff at the Supreme Court need to review the filings at once, and it avoids a situation where the petition is fully documented but the comment answering it is not. It also ensures that any member of the Court reviewing the case has ready access to a full copy of the respondents' position, without having to wait for a single copy to circulate among them.

What has to accompany the original

The original comment must be accompanied by certified true copies of whatever material portions of the record it refers to, together with other supporting papers, so that any factual assertion made in the comment is backed by verifiable documentation rather than left as a bare, unsupported claim. A copy of the comment must also be served on the petitioner, giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to see exactly how the respondents are answering the petition's allegations. This documentation requirement mirrors what is expected of the petitioner at the outset, so that both sides of the case are held to the same standard of substantiating their claims with the actual record rather than mere assertions.

The case generally closes there

After the comment is filed, no other pleading may be submitted by any party unless the Court specifically requires or allows it. This effectively closes the round of pleadings at petition and comment, keeping the case from dragging on through successive replies, rejoinders, and sur-rejoinders unless the Court itself decides that more briefing is genuinely needed to resolve the issues raised. This limitation keeps a Rule 64 case from becoming an extended back-and-forth exchange of pleadings, consistent with the summary character of the special civil action itself. A respondent who ignores this comment requirement, or files it late without leave, risks having the case resolved on the petition and record alone, since the rule does not obligate the Court to wait indefinitely for a comment that never comes before deciding the petition on the merits.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.