Short answer. No. Filing the petition for certiorari does not stay execution of the judgment, final order, or resolution being reviewed, unless the Supreme Court specifically directs otherwise, on whatever terms it considers just — so the ruling stays enforceable while the petition is pending.

What the law says

The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.

Rule 64, Section 8 — Effect of filing. Read the full provision →

No automatic stay

A common misconception is that filing a petition automatically freezes enforcement of the ruling being challenged. Under this rule, that is not the case: the COMELEC or COA judgment, final order, or resolution remains executory even while the Rule 64 petition is pending before the Supreme Court. This default rule applies regardless of how strong the petitioner believes the grounds for certiorari to be, since the strength of the petition itself does not by itself trigger a stay.

The exception is discretionary, not automatic

The only way execution is stayed is if the Supreme Court itself directs otherwise, and it may attach whatever terms it deems just to that relief. A petitioner who needs the ruling's enforcement halted cannot rely on the mere act of filing; a specific order from the Court is required, typically sought through a separate application asking the Court to enjoin enforcement while the petition is being resolved.

Practical implication for petitioners

Anyone filing a Rule 64 petition and wanting to prevent enforcement in the meantime needs to actively seek that relief from the Court rather than assume it follows automatically from the petition itself. Otherwise, the challenged ruling continues to have full effect throughout the review process, which can mean an adverse COMELEC or COA action proceeds to enforcement, disbursement, or implementation well before the Supreme Court ever reaches the merits of the petition.

Why the default runs against automatic stays

COMELEC and COA rulings often involve election results, public funds, or administrative actions with time-sensitive consequences, and an automatic stay every time a losing party filed a petition would let a party delay implementation simply by filing, regardless of the petition's merit. Requiring a specific showing before the Supreme Court will halt enforcement keeps automatic delay from becoming a tool separate from the actual strength of the certiorari petition. This also means a petitioner cannot wait until enforcement is already underway and then claim the pending petition alone should have paused it; the obligation to seek a stay order rests on the petitioner from the moment the petition is filed, not on the Court to act on its own initiative.

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.