MANILA, Philippines — Nearly six decades after it was decided, the Supreme Court's ruling in Stonehill vs Diokno resurfaced during the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday, July 20.
Sen. Pia Cayetano cited the 1967 ruling as she questioned the prosecution's request for subpoenas covering Duterte's bank, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records.
The ruling also became part of the exchange between Cayetano and prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno, who argued that Stonehill vs Diokno does not apply to the subpoenas sought by the prosecution, as part of the proceedings on the second article of impeachment, which alleges unexplained wealth.
Here's a look at the case and why it became part of the proceedings.
Why did Pia Cayetano cite the case?
During her interpellation, Cayetano questioned whether ordering the production of Duterte's financial records could raise constitutional concerns.
She cited Stonehill vs Diokno, pointing to two principles associated with the decision: the prohibition against general warrants and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which generally bars evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches.
She asked whether compelling a person to disclose private financial records was, in effect, an invasive search.
What was Chel Diokno's response?
Diokno said the prosecution was seeking subpoenas, not search warrants.
He argued that the two are governed by different legal standards.
According to Diokno, a search warrant allows authorities to enter a home or office and seize evidence, making it subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A subpoena, on the other hand, directs a person or institution to produce specific records before the court.
Diokno said the issuance of a subpoena does not automatically make the documents admissible as evidence.
He explained that the impeachment court will determine its admissibility only after the prosecution formally offers the records during the presentation of its evidence.
What is Stonehill vs Diokno?
Stonehill vs Diokno is named after American businessman Harry Stonehill, who challenged the searches and then-Justice Secretary Jose W. "Ka Pepe" Diokno, who headed the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the investigation. Ka Pepe Diokno was the father of prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno.
The case stemmed from a government investigation launched in 1962 against Stonehill.
In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that the search warrants used in the investigation were general warrants prohibited by the Constitution because they failed to particularly describe the documents authorities were authorized to seize.
The high court declared the warrants unconstitutional and adopted the "exclusionary rule" in Philippine jurisprudence, meaning evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is generally inadmissible in court.
The decision is regarded as one of the country's leading cases on the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Who was Harry Stonehill?
Stonehill was an American businessman who built a business empire in the Philippines during the 1950s and early 1960s.
His companies operated in industries including tobacco, manufacturing, agriculture and construction.
In 1962, Philippine authorities investigated him for alleged tax, customs and foreign exchange violations.
The investigation was conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation under the DOJ headed by then-Justice chief Jose W. "Ka Pepe" Diokno.
Why did the investigation become controversial?
Authorities carried out raids on Stonehill's offices, warehouses and residences after securing dozens of search warrants.
Historical accounts say investigators recovered thousands of documents, including a purported "blue book" that allegedly contained records linking Stonehill to politicians and government officials. Among those reportedly named were then-president Diosdado Macapagal, future president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former president Carlos P. Garcia.
The alleged notebook has never been publicly authenticated and no verified complete copy is publicly available. As a result, any names reportedly appearing in it remain allegations rather than judicial findings.
The controversy deepened when the Macapagal administration deported Stonehill instead of pursuing criminal prosecution in the Philippines.
Diokno publicly opposed the decision, arguing that it could hamper efforts to investigate and prosecute any public officials who may have accepted bribes.
He later asked: "How can the government now prosecute the corrupted when it allowed the corrupter to go?" according to TIME's 1962 article "The Philippines: Smoke in Manila."
Based on historical accounts, Diokno learned from newspaper reports that his resignation had been accepted, despite not having submitted one. He subsequently left his post as justice secretary.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The high court did not rule on whether Stonehill was guilty of the offenses alleged against him.
It also did not determine whether any public officials had committed corruption.
Instead, it focused on whether the search warrants complied with constitutional requirements.
The justices found that the warrants were general warrants prohibited by the Constitution because they did not particularly describe the items to be seized.
What did the impeachment court decide?
On July 20, the impeachment court granted most of the prosecution's requests for subpoenas covering Duterte's financial and tax records.
The order covers bank records, BIR documents, AMLC records and records involving companies in which Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases "Mans" Carpio, have financial interests, dating back to 2007.
The court excluded foreign currency-denominated accounts and denied the request covering two of the 21 corporations identified by the prosecution.
Diokno said the subpoenas were intended to compel the production of documents that the prosecution plans to use in presenting the second article of impeachment, which alleges unexplained wealth on the part of the vice president. — with a report from Cristina Chi and Ian Laqui