CHAPTER II

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AUDIENCIA OF MANILA (1583-1598).

The conditions which determined the establishment of an audiencia in

the Philippines differed little, if at all, from those in Spain's

other colonies. All of Spain's dependencies were situated at great

distances from the mother country; the Philippines were farther away

than any. Furthermore, the Philippines were isolated and could not

be successfully maintained, if dependent on, or identified with any

other colony; distance and other factors which we shall note made

undesirable and impracticable a continuance of established relations

with New Spain. If, however, the governor of the Philippines came

to be almost absolute in his authority, his absolutism differed in

degree rather than in kind from that of the governors and viceroys

of other colonies. The contiguity of China and Japan, the constant

danger of military invasion and naval attack by outside enemies and

the dependence of the colony on the commerce of China also made the

case of the Philippines somewhat different from that of the colonies

in America. In general, the situation in the Philippines called for a

distinct audiencia with the same powers and functions as were exercised

by the audiencias of the other colonies.

A system for the administration of justice in the Philippines had

been definitely established and organized before the audiencia

was inaugurated in 1584. Many prominent features of the judicial

and administrative systems of Spain and America had been already

introduced into the Islands. At the head of both judicial and

administrative affairs was the governor and captain-general, who

was practically absolute, and whose authority was final except

in certain matters of litigation which could be appealed to the

Audiencia of Mexico. Subordinate to him were the alcaldes mayores

and corregidores, whose functions have been already noted. In the

Philippines, as elsewhere, the latter officials acted as magistrates

and governors of provinces, combining judicial and administrative

attributes. Directly subordinate to them were the encomenderos, whose

holdings, including lands and Indians, may be said to have constituted

the unit of the Spanish colonial land system until the close of the

eighteenth century. [48] As in Spain, so in the Spanish towns of the

Philippines, there were alcaldes ordinarios, or municipal judges,

elected by the citizens in some cases, or appointed by the governor

in others. [49]

But the system as established was defective in many respects. The

governor and captain-general was chief judge, executive, and

commander of the military forces. In him were centralized all the

functions of justice and government, exercised in the provinces

through the alcaldes mayores and corregidores. The latter officials

he appointed ad interim, supervised their administrative duties,

and heard judicial cases appealed from them. He likewise exercised

supervision over the oficiales reales, who were entrusted with the

collection, care and expenditure of the funds of the colony. [50]

During the period before the establishment of the audiencia, the

governor exercised complete control over all branches and departments

of the government,--provincial, municipal, and insular--in matters

of justice, administration, and finance. The centralization of

all this authority in the person of one official made his position

responsible and powerful, but capable of much abuse. And it was the

abuses incidental to the exercise of absolute power by the governor

that led to the establishment of the Audiencia of Manila.

Probably the most important indirect reason for the establishment

of an audiencia in the Philippines may be noted in the abuses

connected with the administration of the encomiendas. These may

be attributed both to the powerlessness and inefficiency of the

governors, and to their cupidity and deliberate favoritism to the

encomenderos. As a result of the rapid spread of these encomiendas,

[51] settlements, or agricultural estates, for such they were,

and their location in distant and widely separated parts of the

Archipelago, the encomenderos came to have increased responsibilities

and powers. They were far removed from the central authority at

Manila. They were infrequently inspected by the alcaldes mayores

and corregidores in whose districts they were situated. Indeed,

the encomiendas had spread so rapidly in the Philippines that the

governmental machinery provided by Spain was unable to provide for

them. In 1591, for example, there were 267 encomiendas containing

667,612 souls. These were supervised by twelve alcaldes mayores. [52]

One hundred and forty priests were provided to minister to this large

congregation of natives. The Philippine government, with an autocratic

military governor at its head, had been originally designed for one

settlement or province, and not for an extensive military possession,

distributed over a widely separated area, with insufficient means of

communication and transportation. Under the conditions outlined above,

the encomenderos were permitted to forget the benign purposes for

which they had been originally entrusted with the care and protection

of the natives. The Indians on the encomiendas were reduced to the

condition of slaves. They were mistreated, overtaxed, overworked,

cheated, neglected, flogged, and abused. [53] Their protectors had

become their exploiters. The churchmen who were supposed to act as

their guardians and spiritual aids were insufficient in number to

render effective service. Many of the latter served the interests

of the encomenderos, and the latter were decidedly unfavorable to

the introduction of more priests. The local officials of government

and justice were in most cases too far away to care for and protect

the natives, or even to visit the more remote encomiendas in their

districts. Moreover, many of them were themselves encomenderos,

perpetrating abuses on their own tenants, and accordingly little

inclined to sacrifice their own interests for the protection of the

natives on other encomiendas. Finally, the governor, located at the

distant capital, was possibly ignorant of the real state of affairs;

at any rate, he failed to enforce the laws which commanded humane

treatment of the natives, leaving to the encomenderos, the alcaldes

mayores, and corregidores the administration of the provinces and

the supervision of the encomiendas. [54]

Efforts had been made for the correction of these abuses and to

bring about a more effective control of the encomiendas by the

governor. Early in the history of the Islands the king had empowered

governors and viceroys to grant encomiendas for life, with thirty

years' remission of tribute, to those who had participated in the

conquest. Legaspi and Lavezares, the first two governors of the

Philippines, had given encomiendas without limit to favorites,

relatives, and friends; consequently, when Sande became governor,

he was obliged to direct much of his attention to the eradication of

the resultant evils, and he attempted to establish the encomiendas on

a profitable and honest basis. He dispossessed many of the holders

of these large tracts, and reserved them for the crown, as royal

encomiendas, thus creating a revenue for the newly established and

financially embarrassed government. [55] Sande made royal many of the

hitherto unprofitable encomiendas which had been in private hands. [56]

On account of these acts Sande became very unpopular in Manila, and

so unpleasant were his relations with the residents that, having

no protection or recourse, he was obliged to give up his command,

practically driven from the Islands by his enemies.

The only person in the Philippines who exercised any sort of check

on the governor was the bishop, with whom he was ordered to consult

frequently. These consultations were often productive of bitter

quarrels. The first prelate of the Philippines, Bishop Salazar,

arrived in 1581, and throughout his ecclesiastical administration

exercised influence of a far-reaching character. It was he who first

showed the need of a royal audiencia to check the encroachments of

the governor on the prerogatives of the church, for the protection of

the natives, and for the safeguarding of the royal interests. Bishop

Salazar was a determined opponent of Governor Sande, whom he accused

of excessive indulgence in trade and the extortion of large sums

from the encomenderos. On June 20, 1582, he wrote to the Council:

"if I were as rich as Governor Sande, I would engage to pay any sum of

money." He also testified that "the government here is a place for the

enrichment of governors; they carry away as much as 400,000 ducats,

knowing that they will have to pay a share of it at the residencia,

but they steal enough to do that also." [57]

The government of the Philippines, prior to the establishment of the

Audiencia of Manila, during the period 1565-1584, was subordinate

to the viceroy and to the audiencia in Mexico. The time required

for the transmission of documents and correspondence, the fewness of

ships available for the voyage between the Philippines and New Spain,

and the unsatisfactory means of communication resulting therefrom,

seriously inconvenienced the residents of the colony. In matters

of government and justice appeals had to be taken to Mexico. This

proceeding involved great loss of time and expense, and was especially

inimical to the administration of justice. The assignment and

regulation of encomiendas, the supervision of financial affairs,

the control of the Chinese trade, the dispatch of the galleons to

New Spain, and the assignment of cargo-space on these ships, were

all matters which, at that great distance, and at that time, called

for divided control. The execution of all these duties was too great

a charge for the human frailties of one man; the governor could do

it neither honestly nor well. The necessity was apparent of having a

central government in Manila which would be self-sufficient in itself;

that is, independent of New Spain, and at the same time capable of

repairing its own defects.

The relations which existed between the Manila government and

the authorities of New Spain are illustrated by a letter which

Governor Gonzalo Ronquillo de Peñalosa wrote a month later than

the correspondence above alluded to. In this letter he announced

the arrival of a ship from Mexico, which, he said, bore nothing

but charges against him. These complaints, he alleged, had been

formulated by agents of Dr. Francisco de Sande, his predecessor,

whose residencia he had conducted and whom he had deprived of his

office as governor. Ronquillo wrote that

nevertheless, Sande has been received in that royal audiencia of

Mexico as oidor, as a result of which all those who love justice

may well despair. They meddle with my government from Mexico,

giving orders to my corregidores without consulting me, and

addressing private individuals in regard to the supplies, directing

them to keep watch over this or that matter; they impose grave

penalties upon me, and no matter how small the affair may be, they

refuse to listen to me or to hear my side of the question. [58]

He concluded by pointing out the inconsistency of his position,

subject as he was to Sande, the man whom he had displaced because

of the former's unfitness to occupy the post of governor. Although

Governor Ronquillo de Peñalosa did not ask for an audiencia on this

occasion, he did petition for an educated assistant to aid him in the

administration of justice. "The trouble here," he wrote to the king,

in the letter above quoted, "is that the people are of such a nature

that, at the same time when justice is done to one, an enemy is made

of another person." The rule of Ronquillo de Peñalosa as governor was

distinctly typical of the possibilities of an absolute executive, far

removed from the restraining influence of the courts, with scarcely

any limitation upon his operations. Appointed as he had been for

life, with proprietary attributes, and with the power of naming his

successor, Ronquillo de Peñalosa was the first governor sent out from

Spain in pursuance of the policy of entrusting frontier commands to

military men who were fitted by profession and experience to deal with

situations which demanded the qualities of the soldier, rather than

those of the administrator and politician. An attempt thus seems to

have been made to remedy the ills which had been characteristic of the

administration of Lavezares and Sande by entrusting the governor with

more centralized power--an attempt to correct the evils of absolutism

with the mailed fist and more absolutism, backed by military power.

The bishop, who at this time kept the court well informed of the

weaknesses of the government, as they appeared to him, sent many

complaints against Ronquillo de Peñalosa, as other churchmen had

done against former governors. Not only did the bishop himself write

repeatedly, but he influenced the municipal and ecclesiastical chapters

of Manila to send protests against the governor's misrule. It was

largely owing to Salazar's influence that Captain Gabriel de Rivera

(or Ribera) was sent to Spain with a petition signed by most of the

influential men of the colony, asking for various reforms. Among these

the establishment of a royal audiencia was especially requested. [59]

On the occasion of Ronquillo's death in 1583, the bishop called

attention to the straits into which the colony had fallen as a

result of the tyrannical methods of the deceased governor. [60] He

described Ronquillo's efforts to prevent residents from appealing to

the audiencia and viceroy of New Spain. He stated that the Indians

had been unjustly treated by the encomenderos and alcaldes mayores,

for when appeals had been made to the governor, the latter, on a

plea of being too busy to occupy himself with such minute details,

had ordered the alcaldes mayores to settle the questions at issue

without disturbing him. Ronquillo was said to have engaged extensively

in commerce, monopolizing the ships to the exclusion of the merchants,

and forcing large loans from the officials and residents, who did not

dare to refuse him, lest all their privileges be taken from them. He

had established private encomiendas in nearly every town in Luzon,

appropriating the income therefrom, instead of turning the proceeds

into the royal treasury. [61] This the prelate conceded to be in

accordance with the conditions of the governor's appointment, but

it was nevertheless unjust, as the privilege of holding encomiendas

was denied to other officials, and the treasury of the colony was in

need of the revenue which had been daily enriching the governor. The

bishop accused the governor of seizing Indians, placing them en

encomienda wherever and whenever he found them, irrespective of

whether they were already free, or whether they belonged on other

encomiendas. These acts, he said, had caused the Indians to be

dissatisfied and rebellious, and he evidently was of the opinion that

a revolt was impending when he penned this memorial. "Many times I

have prayed," he wrote, "that God should close the natives' eyes

in order that they may not see the weakness and the little power

with which we might resist them in case they should arise to put

down these evils." The bishop closed this memorial with a vigorous

protest against the continuance of the hereditary principle in the

succession of governors in the Philippines. He made the general

recommendation that in the future governors should be appointed by

the king, with a view to securing men of administrative and executive

ability. He brought forth strenuous objections to the accession of

the ex-governor's nephew. Diego Ronquillo de Peñalosa, who was not

fitted to occupy the post of governor. If the latter assumed the

government, the bishop could see nothing in store for the colony but

a continuation of the evil days which had been extant throughout the

administration of the elder Ronquillo, "who had spent all his time

in gathering wealth for himself by means of trade, shutting his eyes

and ears to those who asked justice of him." Salazar expressed the

opinion that "had Gonzalo Ronquillo de Peñalosa spent as much of his

time in making conquests and discoveries as he had in making packages

[of merchandise], the prosperity of the Islands and the general

welfare would have been his chief aim." [62]

Although the decree establishing an audiencia in the Philippines

was promulgated before the above memorial reached court, there is no

question but that the influence of Bishop Salazar did much towards

bringing about the creation of a tribunal in the Islands. Indeed,

Salazar has been given all the credit for this by more than one

authority. [63] While the bishop did exert an important influence

in bringing about this change, the support which he received

from residents of the colony was also of immense advantage. Many

individuals, aggrieved by the abuses of the executive, wrote

vigorous complaints against "the tyranny of an absolute governor,

who alone and unchecked, reserves to himself excessive power." Their

letters emphasize the injustice of having appeals carried to Mexico,

"where the people of Manila never get their deserts, and where they

suffer on account of the distance." Various encomenderos had been

wronged by the acts of the governor in dividing their encomiendas, and

reducing the number of Indians thereon; they had appealed to Mexico,

and after waiting over two years, had despaired of ever getting any

return for the money and the time which they had spent in litigation

at the distant capital. As a possible means of relief they requested

the establishment of a royal audiencia at Manila. [64]

Another person who exerted considerable influence toward the

establishment of an audiencia in the Philippines was Captain

Gabriel de Rivera, who went to Madrid for that purpose. He was

the first procurador general de las islas del poniente, and it was

his duty to represent at court the needs of the colony, and of its

inhabitants. [65] Rivera acted as the personal agent of Salazar in his

advocacy of the establishment of an audiencia, and it was largely due

to his efforts that the institution was established when it was. In

his memorial of February 16, 1582, Rivera criticized the existing

administration in the Philippines, the proprietary governorship, and

the control over commerce which the governor had exercised. The latter

had levied the almojarifazgo and other customs duties in defiance of

the royal cédulas forbidding them, and without consulting the wishes

of the merchants or officials. Rivera alleged that the almojarifazgo

and the alcabala were ruining the commerce of the Islands. [66]

His memorial treated extensively of the abuses which had occurred in

the administration of the encomiendas, and he pointed out numerous

defects in the judicial system of the colonies.

He suggested the establishment of a royal audiencia to consist

of three judges, having criminal and civil jurisdiction, without

appeal to any other tribunal than the Council of the Indies. The

audiencia as outlined by him was to have administrative powers as

well as judicial; it was to govern as a commission, with a governor

at its head, chosen for a term of six years. [67] This scheme, he

said, if put into operation, would result in no increased expense

to the crown or colony. He proposed the abolition of the three

oficiales reales, suggesting the substitution of three oidores in

their places, thus extending the jurisdiction of the audiencia to

matters of finance. The new tribunal should likewise take cognizance

of the assignment of encomiendas, and see that in all cases the royal

will was obeyed. The audiencia should exercise supervision over the

alcaldes mayores in their relation to the encomiendas, with a view to

remedying the existing abuses and seeing that justice was done to the

Indians. The audiencia should hear cases appealed from the alcaldes

mayores and corregidores instead of allowing these suits to be heard

by the governor or sent to Mexico. Rivera also urged that there should

be a special defender of the Indians as a part of the audiencia. [68]

Enough has been noted of the evils of the government as it existed

before the establishment of the audiencia to understand the reasons

for the creation of the tribunal. The whole matter summarizes itself

in the excesses of the governor, and the necessity of protecting

all classes of society from his absolutism. These abuses called for

the establishment of a tribunal nearer than New Spain, which would,

in a safe and expeditious manner, impose the necessary limitations

upon the governor, insure an equitable collection and an economical

expenditure of the public revenue, and bring about particularly

the elimination of official corruption. It was desirable to protect

the merchant in his legitimate business, to insure stability in the

relations of church and state, and to obviate the existing evils in

the administration of the provincial governments. The latter meant

the assignment of encomiendas in accordance with the law to deserving

individuals instead of to friends and relatives of the governors, or

to other prominent officials of the colony. It also meant that the

natives on these encomiendas should be protected from the rapacity

of the encomenderos. It was realized that an effort should be made

to insure the imparting of religious instruction to the natives

in partial return for tribute paid by them. Finally, it meant the

establishment of a tribunal which would have power to enforce the

law prescribing that the alcaldes mayores and corregidores should

exercise faithful supervision over these matters which were within

their jurisdiction. A tribunal was needed, not merely to hear such

appeals as might come to it by process of law, but with authority to

intervene actively in affairs of government, checking the abuses of

the governor and protecting the community from his absolutism.

The proposition to establish an independent audiencia in Manila

was opposed by the viceroy and audiencia of New Spain. The latter

tribunal wrote a letter of protest to the Council of the Indies,

demanding that in matters of government and justice the colony of

the Philippines should continue to bear the same relations to the

viceroyalty of New Spain as did Guadalajara. [69] Rivera answered

these objections in a special memorial, stating that the isolation

of the Philippines alone justified the establishment of an audiencia

and an independent government. He also pointed out that the nearness

of Japan and China and the necessity of dealing with them required the

presence of a sovereign tribunal in Manila. He asserted that the colony

could deal directly with the Council of the Indies more profitably

than through the Audiencia of Mexico. The latter mode of procedure

was indirect and cumbersome and it exposed litigants to the meddling

of the oidores of Mexico in matters which they did not understand. [70]

Finally, the Audiencia of Manila was established by decree of Philip

II on May 5, 1583, in the following terms:

Whereas in the interests of good government and the administration

of our justice, we have accorded the establishment in the city of

Manila in the Island of Luzon of one of our royal audiencias and

chanceries, in which there shall be a president, three oidores,

a fiscal, and the necessary officials; and whereas we have

granted that this audiencia should have the same authority and

preeminence as each one of our royal audiencias which sit in the

town of Valladolid and the city of Granada of these our realms,

and the other audiencias of our Indies: now therefore we order

to be made and sent to the said Island our royal seal, with which

are to be stamped our decisions which are made and issued by the

said president and oidores in the said audiencia. [71]

The jurisdiction of the tribunal, it is to be noted, extended

throughout the Island of Luzon and the rest of the islands of the

Archipelago, as well as over "the mainland of China, whether discovered

or yet to be discovered."

The decree which provided for the foundation of the Audiencia of

Manila consisted of three hundred and thirteen sections. Although

the audiencia was subsequently abolished for a few years, it was

re-established in 1598 and these articles were again utilized. It

is therefore worth while to notice the most important provisions

of the law of establishment, which was to serve as a foundation

for the audiencia during a period of approximately three hundred

years. The first thirty-eight sections were devoted to the creation

of the tribunal, to a definition of its jurisdiction over civil

and criminal cases, and to a determination of the proper method of

procedure in them. The audiencia was to have authority to try cases

of appeal from gobernadores, alcaldes mayores, and other magistrates

of the provinces; it also had jurisdiction over civil cases appealed

from the alcaldes ordinarios of the city and original jurisdiction

over all criminal cases arising within five leagues of the city

of Manila. Appeals were to be tried by revista (review) before the

tribunal. Cases of first instance (vista) were not to be tried in

the tribunal, excepting those to which the government was a party,

or the above-mentioned criminal cases. The judgment of the audiencia

was usually to be final in ordinary suits, and always in criminal

cases. Those involving the government, and civil suits exceeding a

certain value were appealable to the Council of the Indies. Notice of

appeal to the latter tribunal had to be served within one year after

the objectionable decision was rendered, and the party appealing

the case was obliged to post financial bonds covering the expenses

of suit in case the final judgment were not favorable to him. The

decision of the audiencia was to be executed in all cases, even

though an appeal to the Council of the Indies had been made. The

procedure followed in the chanceries of Valladolid and Granada was to

be enforced in the Audiencia of Manila except when the contrary was

especially ordered. Investigations might be made by one judge, but

the concurrence of two was necessary for all decisions involving the

reversal of a former judgment, or in cases wherein a certain amount

was at stake. In the latter case, an assistant judge might be chosen

from outside the audiencia to assist the regular magistrate.

The audiencia was forbidden to act alone in the selection of judges

of residencias or pesquisidores; it was commanded not to interfere

with governors of provinces, but it had the right, when, charges

had been made by private individuals, to conduct investigations of

governors' official conduct. The audiencia was empowered to investigate

the judges of provinces. Magistrates were forbidden to hear cases

affecting themselves or their relatives, and when a case involving

more than one thousand pesos was before the tribunal, and no oidor was

eligible to try it, an alcalde ordinario might serve in the place of a

regular magistrate, with appeal to the Council of the Indies. Criminal

charges against the oidores were to be tried by the president, with

the assistance, if need be, of such alcaldes ordinarios as the latter

might select. No relative of the president or of an oidor could be

appointed legally to a corregidor-ship or to an encomienda. Oidores

were eligible for appointment by the president from time to time to

inspect the administration of justice and government in the provinces.

Oidores were forbidden to receive fees from or to act as advocates for

any private person, and they could not hold income-yielding estates in

arable land or cattle. Oidores were forbidden to engage in business,

either singly or in partnership, nor could they avail themselves

of the compulsory services of Indians under pain of deprivation of

office. Any person could bring suit against an oidor. As noted above,

such cases would either be tried by the president or by an alcalde

ordinario on the president's designation. Such cases might be appealed

to the Council of the Indies.

The audiencia, according to the terms of its establishment, had

extensive authority over matters of government. In case of the

death or incapacity of the president, the audiencia was to assume

control of affairs, the senior oidor filling the post of president

and captain-general, with special charge over military matters. Under

such circumstances the administrative and executive functions were

to be administered by the audiencia as a body. The governor, who was

also president of the audiencia, was ordered to make a complete report

annually to the Council of the Indies on the state of the government

and the finances of the colony, including an account of the gross

income and expenditures, a survey of conditions of the encomiendas

and corregimientos, as well as a report on the conduct of officials,

including oidores. In fact, all matters that came regularly under the

care of the executive were to be covered in the annual report of the

governor and captain-general of the Islands.

The president was empowered to delegate the oidores, in turn, to make

tours of inspection in the provinces. The magistrates, as visitors,

were to inquire into the character of service rendered by the alcaldes

mayores in the administration of government and justice. They were to

note the state of the towns and their needs, the means taken for the

construction and preservation of public buildings, and the condition

of the Indians on the encomiendas. They were to see whether they were

faithfully and efficiently instructed in religion, or whether they

were permitted to live in ignorance and idolatry. Reports were to

be made by the visitors on the state of the soil, the condition of

the crops and harvests, extent of mineral wealth and timber in the

provinces under investigation, weights and measures, and in fact,

everything that had to do with the general welfare. On these trips

the oidores were authorized to take such action as they felt to be

necessary. Two oidores were also required to make weekly inspections

of the prisons of the colony.

The decree of establishment also directed that certain phases

of ecclesiastical affairs should claim the attention of the

audiencia. The chief duty of the tribunal in that regard was to keep

the ecclesiastical judges from exceeding their authority, and the

practices of the audiencias of Spain were especially prescribed as

a precedent for the local tribunal. The audiencia was charged with

supervision over the assignment of benefices, and especially with the

settlement of the property and estates of bishops and archbishops who

died in the Islands. The audiencia was ordered to permit nothing to

be done which would be in prejudice of the rights and prerogatives of

the church. The tribunal was instructed to assist the prelates on all

occasions when they petitioned for royal aid. It was also to see that

properly accredited bulls were read and applied in the Spanish towns,

but not in the native villages.

As noted above, suits involving the royal treasury and the collection

of money for the government were to be reviewed and decided before any

other that might come up in the royal audiencia. It was the duty of the

fiscal to prosecute these cases in the interest of the government. At

the beginning of each year the president and two magistrates were to

audit the reports of the oficiales reales, and if these reports were

not duly and properly rendered, the salaries of these officials were

to be withheld. After auditing the accounts the committee was to count

the money in the royal treasury. The oidores who did this extra work

were to receive an allowance of twenty-five thousand maravedís (about

56 pesos) in addition to their regular salaries. The authorization of

the audiencia was necessary for the payment of extraordinary expenses

not appearing in the regular budget and these disbursements were

made subject to the later approval of the Council of the Indies. The

audiencia was held responsible in these matters by the Council. Full

reports of expenditures made on the responsibility of the audiencia

were to be made to the Council, and the oidores were held accountable

in their residencias for their votes cast in the junta or acuerdo de

hacienda, as the committee was called.

The audiencia was given supervision over the administration of

the estates of deceased persons; it was to examine the accounts of

executors and see that the wills of the deceased were faithfully

executed and that all was done in accordance with the law. For this

purpose an oidor was delegated each year with authority to dispose

of these cases in the name of the audiencia. In a subsequent chapter

the duties and activities of this administrador or juez de bienes de

difuntos will be enlarged upon.

Considerable space in this decree was devoted to prescribing the

rules for the trial of cases involving Indians, with a view to

securing justice both in their administration by the encomenderos

and in the supervision which the alcaldes mayores exercised over the

encomenderos. The provision was made that "our said president and

oidores shall always take great care to be informed of the crimes

and abuses which are committed against the Indians under our royal

crown, or against those granted in encomiendas to other persons by

the governors." The audiencia was directed to exercise care that

"the said Indians shall be better treated and instructed in our Holy

Catholic Faith, as our free vassals."

The audiencia was required to exercise care that suits involving

Indians were neither lengthy nor involved, that decisions were

reached promptly and without unnecessary litigation, and that the

rites, customs, and practices to which the Indians had always been

accustomed should be continued in so far as was practicable. The

audiencia and the bishop were to see that there was a person appointed

in each village to give instruction in religion. Alcaldes mayores were

ordered not to dispossess native chiefs of their rule or authority;

they were, on the contrary, to appeal cases involving them without

delay to the audiencia, or to the visiting oidor. The audiencia was

to devote two days a week to hearing suits to which Indians were

parties. Encomenderos were to be protected by the audiencia in the

possession of their encomiendas.

A proportionate amount of attention in this cédula is devoted to

outlining the duties of the fiscal, who, from many points of view, was

the most important official directly connected with the tribunal. It

was his function to appear as prosecutor for the government in all

cases tried before the audiencia, and he was forbidden to serve as the

advocate of any private person during his term of office. He should

devote his attention especially to matters involving the exchequer. He

was to prosecute all cases of appeal from the alcaldes mayores and

corregidores on behalf of the government, and "he was to take care

to assist and favor poor Indians in the suits that they have, and to

see that they are not oppressed, maltreated, or wronged." The fiscal,

ordinarily, was not to prosecute unless it were on the complaint of

some person, but in cases of notorious injustice, or when judicial

inquiry was being made, he could take the initiative on his own

account. It was his duty to perform any and all legal acts which were

consistent with his position, and which were designed to bring about

justice or to secure the royal interests.

The remaining sections of this decree, and, in fact, the greater part

of it, are devoted to establishing the duties of the fiscal and the

minor officials of the audiencia, to fixing a tariff of fees to be

charged for notarial and other legal work and to the determination

of other matters which are of no great consequence to the purposes

of this chapter.

Among the minor officials attached to the audiencia were the alguacil

mayor and his two deputies. These were to act as the executive officers

of the court and were empowered to make arrests, serve papers and

execute similar functions. Their duties, as a whole, were much like

those of the English or American constable or sheriff. They might

arrest, on their own initiative, persons whom they caught in crime, as,

for example, those playing forbidden games of chance, or indulging in

immoral practices, typical particularly of the Chinese. The alguacil

was responsible for the maintenance of the prison of the audiencia;

for this purpose he could appoint a certain number of jail-wardens.

There were also clerks of court and notaries, chosen by royal

appointment. Their duties were those customarily required of such

officials, not differing from those of today. The audiencia likewise

had official reporters, similar to the court reporters of the present

day. Advocates and attorneys practicing before the audiencia had

to fulfill certain prescribed requirements in regard to learning,

training, and general ability. Receivers, bailiffs, jail-wardens and

interpreters each received their due amount of space and attention

in this cédula. The interpreters were to assist the Indians who

were defending themselves in a Spanish-speaking court. Among their

duties was the translation of the testimony of witnesses, of the

questions of attorneys and the rulings of the courts into the native

dialects, or into the Spanish language, as the circumstances might

require. These interpreters were also required to assist the natives

in the formulation of legal documents. All these minor officials were

to be regulated in the collection of fees by a legal tariff. Finally,

the audiencia was provided with an archive within which were to be

deposited and kept the great seal of the government, and all official

papers, including records of cases and official acts.

The new audiencia having been provided for, Santiago de Vera, the

recently appointed governor and captain-general of the Islands and

president of the new tribunal, arrived at Manila on May 28, 1584. In

accordance with the new law, it was his duty to govern the Philippines

in the capacity of executive and military commander, and at the same

time preside over the audiencia in its respective judicial, advisory,

and administrative capacities. The first session of the audiencia was

held on June 15, 1584. [72] The new tribunal was officially brought

into being with much pomp and ceremony, including a procession of

the president and magistrates in their robes of office, and the

celebration of divine service in the cathedral by the bishop. The

president and each of the oidores subsequently made lengthy reports

to the Council of the Indies on the inauguration of the tribunal.

The most direct and striking consequence of the establishment of

the audiencia in Manila was the discord which it engendered between

the various officials and functionaries of the government. Whereas,

before the inauguration of the tribunal, the chief ill of the colony

had been the unrivaled absolutism and the high-handed proceedings

of the governor, now, with the division of power newly effected,

the creation of new departments, and the checking of one official

against another, strife and contention took the place of despotism.

There were but few misunderstandings between the oidores over their

judicial duties. The functions of the audiencia, as a court, were

clearly defined and distinctly understood. Although appeals were

made from the audiencia to the Council of the Indies, as appeals

are always made from a minor court to a superior tribunal, there

was little dissatisfaction with the body in the exercise of its

purely legal functions. Its value in protecting the natives on

the encomiendas from the tyranny of their masters, the facility

rendered to the administration of justice by making appeal to New

Spain unnecessary, and the advantage of having immediately at hand

a tribunal with plenary powers were readily recognized.

The chief objection to the tribunal developed as a result

of the audiencia's interference in matters of government and

administration. Disputes arose between the governor and the oidores,

and among the oidores themselves. The lack of experience in the

local field of the president and magistrates may have been one of

the causes of the unsatisfactory conditions immediately following

the establishment of the audiencia. Another and possibly a more

important reason lay in the nature and wording of the articles of

establishment. A certain amount of confusion existed in the minds

of all as to the extent of power which the audiencia should have in

governmental and ecclesiastical affairs. No definite distinction had

been drawn between the powers of the president and those of the oidores

in matters of government, and the former at once accused the latter

of infringing upon the jurisdiction of the executive. The oidores,

on the other hand, claimed that their advice should be taken in all

matters of appointment, defense, patronage--both ecclesiastical

and secular--finance, commerce and interior administration. They

began to intervene actively in those matters, to the displeasure

of the governor and treasury officials. All the oidores as well

as the fiscal, wrote lengthy memorials and reports to the king,

offering advice on this affair or that, and criticising the governor,

the bishop, and the oficiales reales for acts done within their own

spheres of authority. In sending these reports and in making these

suggestions, the magistrates did not question their own authority and

they resented exceedingly the objections and charges of interference

by those concerned.

An illustration may be noted in the letter written on July 3, 1584,

by Oidor Melchoir Dávalos to the king. After several clear intimations

that he would like to be governor in case a vacancy should arise

and after modestly setting forth his own qualifications and virtues,

Dávalos wrote a faithful and vivid account of the expeditions which

had been made recently against the Mohammedan Sulus. He petitioned

for a suspension of the law forbidding slavery in order that Spaniards

might avail themselves of captive Moros as slaves. [73] He made several

recommendations in regard to the Chinese, stating particularly that he

was devoting himself to a study of the kind of government best fitted

for the Chinese in Manila. He complained that the Chinese merchants

were draining the Islands of silver, bringing as many as thirty-four

shiploads of Chinese cargo a year. Since nothing of commercial value

was produced in the Philippines, they could take away nothing else

than silver. This incessant drain on the coin imported from Acapulco

was resulting in the impoverishment of the colony and constituted a

source of danger to New Spain as well. The exportation of money was

contrary to royal orders and distinctly prejudicial to the economic

interests of the realm. Dávalos recommended immediate action in the

matter. He then discussed military affairs, alleging that the pay of

the soldiers was insufficient, and their condition miserable. The first

and third of the matters touched upon by the oidor in his memorial,

namely, the war in Mindanao and the condition of the soldiers, belonged

to the private jurisdiction of the governor and captain-general,

[74] the control of the Chinese coming later under the jurisdiction

of the governor, as captain-general, with special inhibition of the

interference of the audiencia. [75]

This letter furnishes a good illustration of the interference of an

oidor in matters of government. The desire to interfere does not

seem to have been confined to one individual, but was apparently

characteristic of all the magistrates of the audiencia. [76]

The extensive field over which the oidores claimed cognizance is

shown by a series of memorials which were sent by the audiencia as

a body to the court under the date of June 26, 1586. [77] They are

noted here because they illustrate the diversity of the interests of

the oidores, and because their devotion to these various matters was

characterized as unjustified meddling by the governor and the other

opponents of the audiencia. The concern which the oidores manifested

in the miscellaneous affairs of government constituted, no doubt,

an indirect reason for the temporary removal of the tribunal in 1589.

These memorials suggested reform in many departments of government. The

inadequate state of defense and the demoralized condition into which

the garrison had fallen was the subject of one letter. Attention was

called to the necessity of obtaining more funds for the fortifications

of the Islands. Reference was made to the continual danger of Japanese

invasion. Another letter dealt with financial affairs. The public

exchequer was reported to be in bad condition, as there was not

enough money in the treasury to pay the expenses of government. The

oidores recommended that their own salaries should be paid out of the

treasury of Mexico. They suggested an increase of tribute as a means

of securing more money. This, they alleged, could be done in justice,

since the amount of tribute paid by the natives of the Philippines

did not equal that levied upon the Indians of New Spain. [78] The

oidores reported an increase of 5000 pesos in the revenues of the

colony as profits from the sale of certain offices which had formerly

been bestowed gratis by the governor upon his friends, the righting

of this wrong being effected through the influence of the fiscal and

oidores who officiated as members of the junta de hacienda.

While ostensibly seeking means for the enlargement of the income of

the Islands, as noted, the oidores protested against a recent royal

order which had required that the proceeds returned from vacant

encomiendas should be placed in the public treasury. They objected

that this would take away all hope of reward from soldiers and subjects

"who have served your Majesty, reducing them to poverty, with no means

of support after a long career of service." [79] In other words, the

audiencia is here seen registering its objections to the conversion

of private into royal encomiendas, notwithstanding the fact that this

would mean greater revenue for the government. The inconsistency of

this attitude was pointed out by Magistrate Dávalos in his letter of

June 20, 1585. [80]

Another petition which may reflect some discredit upon the audiencia

was one which asked for the abolition of the one and one-half per

cent tax on imported money, and for the elimination of the three per

cent almojarifazgo. Both of these taxes bore heavily on the Chinese

and on the Spanish merchants of Manila. "These two taxes," wrote

the oidores, "are drawing the life-blood from the Chinese, who would

otherwise bring products of great value to our shores." The oidores

had commenced this memorial by showing the financial needs of the

colony. They had requested assistance from the treasury of Mexico,

yet, in the same communication, they proposed to abolish three of

the most profitable sources of colonial revenue that existed. These

recommendations not only illustrate the wide sphere of influence of

the magistrates, but they also seem to confirm the allegations which

were often brought against them, charges, indeed, which they proffered

against one another--that each was more interested in trade than in the

welfare of the government. Notwithstanding the fact that the economic

life of the colony depended on the Chinese trade, the evidence seems

to indicate that, even this early in the history of the tribunal, its

magistrates had personal interests to serve. In the letter referred

to above, Dávalos, who seems to have been a dissenting party to all

these proceedings, charged his contemporaries with being guilty of

undue mercantile activity.

In this same memorial the oidores warned the Council against the

Portuguese influence in China, deploring the existence of Macao as

a rival to Manila as a trade emporium in the Orient. The audiencia

warned the court against the influence and operations of Pedro

Unamanú, the successor to Captain Gali, who had gone to China and

Macao, supposedly to take on a cargo of Chinese silks. This was

in defiance of the law which forbade Spaniards to trade in China,

and it was also contrary to the instructions of the viceroy and

audiencia of New Spain. In this connection the oidores stated that

they had recommended to Governor Santiago de Vera that Unamanú should

be arrested and punished for diverting his voyage in the interests

of private trade. In accordance with the advice of the tribunal

the governor had sent orders to Macao, summoning the leader of this

expedition back to Manila; these instructions, however, the governor

of Macao was unable to fulfill. [81]

This memorial shows that the oidores considered it to be their

duty to inform the court fully as to the part which the audiencia

played in this affair. The matter at hand constituted a question

of disobedience of the law, and the Audiencia of Manila had done

what it could to enforce it. The tribunal had assumed a role quite

as important as that of the governor. The episode shows also that

the audiencia was consulted by the governor in this matter, which

was purely governmental. It would not be unfair to suggest that a

potential factor in stimulating the oidores and merchants of Manila

to prevent the voyage of Pedro Unamanú or the Portuguese to China for

trading purposes must have been the desire to safeguard the Spanish

interests in the Chinese trade, and particularly those of Manila,

which were the sole reliance of the colony. It was essential that

this commerce should be prevented from falling into the hands of

other individuals or nations.

This memorial also dealt with ecclesiastical affairs. In it was

set forth the audiencia's arguments in certain contentions which

the tribunal had had with the bishop, illustrating the fact that

the audiencia was opposed not only by the governor but also by the

ecclesiastical authorities. It appears that the king had formerly

granted to the church courts a large share of temporal jurisdiction

in the Islands. This former concession now stood in the way of the

royal prerogative and caused endless conflicts between the civil and

ecclesiastical judges. The audiencia took the ground that by virtue of

its own establishment the authority of the church courts over civil

matters was at an end. This the prelate declined to admit. Attention

was also directed by the audiencia to the opposition which Bishop

Salazar had manifested toward the claims advanced by the civil

government for extending its jurisdiction over all the non-Christian

tribes, the bishop alleging that Pope Alexander VI had ceded authority

only over such Indians as had been christianized. [82]

In truth, the bishop had found after two years of conflict that the

presence of the audiencia had not entirely solved the problems of

administration, but, on the contrary, had increased the complexity

of many of them. He had differed seriously with the oidores on

several occasions. The ministers had opposed him not only in the

larger questions of government and ecclesiastical administration,

but in matters of ceremony as well. This was more than the prelate

could endure. He appealed some of these disputes to the governor

and that official, after having neglected these matters for a long

period, finally referred them to the audiencia, which promptly made

the settlements in its own favor. [83]

Salazar's influence went far toward bringing about the removal of the

tribunal, as it had helped in causing its establishment in 1584. The

complaints of the bishop against the audiencia brought forth a royal

reprimand for carrying on continual disputes with the audiencia. The

prelate defended himself against these charges in a memorial dated June

24, 1590. [84] He stated that these petty matters of form and ceremony

were of no great consequence. He accused the governor of seeking to

stir up discord between him and the audiencia. As a matter of fact,

he said, the relations between him and the audiencia were far more

harmonious than they had been between the tribunal and the governor,

and on many occasions he had been called in to settle disputes between

the functionaries of the civil government. "It is well known," he

wrote, "within the city and outside of it, that had I not entered

as mediator between the president and oidores there would have been

no peace. It would not have been possible for me to mediate if there

had not been friendly relations between them and me." [85]

The unpopularity of the audiencia from 1584 to 1586 is proved by

the fact that practically all the authorities in Manila--mercantile,

ecclesiastical, political, and even the magistrates themselves--united

in recommending its recall. On June 26, 1586, a series of petitions

was directed to the Council from various personages and organizations

of the city asking that the audiencia be removed. These included

the municipal cabildo, the bishop, the governor, certain military

officials, and, lastly, several oidores (all, in fact, excepting

Dávalos). These greatly regretted the mistake which had been made

in the establishment of the audiencia, conceded that it had been

a failure, and represented that the financial burden which its

presence had imposed had been too great for the colony to bear. [86]

It is certain that the continual conflicts which had resulted from

the presence of the audiencia had not produced a salutary effect on

the government.

The audiencia itself wrote to the Council at the same time: "There

has been in this tribunal, between the oidores and the president,

continual misunderstandings as to jurisdiction, which we have decided

to submit to your Majesty to ascertain whether precedence in these

matters belongs to the president or to the oidores." The Manila cabildo

recommended the re-establishment of the governorship with centralized

authority: the power to grant titles, offices and encomiendas, with

exclusive authority over the latter. This would include the power of

appointing encomenderos in the name of the king. The recommendation

was made by the cabildo that consultative authority in matters of

government should be conferred on the ecclesiastical and military

officials. It was also suggested that a defender of the Indians should

be appointed other than the fiscal, for the latter, by nature of

his office, was their prosecutor rather than their defender. It was

the current opinion, this memorial went on to state, that the local

prelate should be restored to his former place as defender of the

Indians, and that he should have authority to dispossess encomenderos,

if necessity for such action arose.

It has already been stated that Oidor Dávalos was the only official

of importance who would not join in these representations. He believed

that the audiencia was necessary to the prosperity of the colony, and

that, if properly controlled, it would prove beneficial. He believed,

moreover, that the governor was the chief element of discord in the

colony, and that his influence had rendered inefficacious the efforts

of the audiencia to keep peace and to enforce the laws. In a letter

to the king, [87] just a year before the memorial described above,

Dávalos had represented Governor Santiago de Vera as a schemer,

aiming to get absolute control of the government. De Vera, he said,

had gone so far as to influence the bishop and clergy to recommend,

against their better judgment, the abolition of the audiencia. The

governor realized that the tribunal was the one obstacle in the way of

the fulfillment of his designs and had used every possible means to

discredit and humiliate the audiencia and its magistrates. Dávalos

asserted that the appeal of cases to Mexico would inflict great

inconvenience on the people of Manila. He renewed the argument that

Spain should have some sovereign body at that great distance from

the mother country. He enlarged on the future possibilities of the

conquest and rule of the entire Orient by Spain, pointing out the

value of the Philippines as a base of operations. It was, therefore,

of the greatest importance that the Islands should be provided with

the proper sort of government.

Dávalos was especially bitter in his denunciation of Governor De Vera,

who, he said, had even resorted to force in order to intimidate the

magistrates and had called a council of military officials on one

occasion for consultation in matters of justice and government. The

governor was accused of violating the laws which had forbidden

officials to hold encomiendas; he had given the best posts in the

government to relatives, and had completely set aside the judgments

which Dávalos had rendered in his capacity as juez y administrador de

bienes de difuntos. The audiencia had been powerless to oppose De Vera,

largely, Dávalos inferred, because a majority of the magistrates were

under his influence.

However unfavorable were the above comments on the governor, the

picture which De Vera drew of himself in a letter to Archbishop

Contreras, [88] at that time viceroy of New Spain, is exceedingly

interesting by way of contrast. In his own words, the governor had

grown "old and worn" in his Majesty's service. According to him, the

audiencia was of no service to the government, and only a drawback,

making his own duties as governor doubly heavy, especially "since the

Council [of the Indias] so poorly seconds my efforts ... everything

concerning the government and war in these islands depends on the

president. He must attend to everything punctually; and, in order to

comply with his Majesty's commands, he must pay over and spend from

the royal treasury what is necessary for the affairs of government

and of war."

He complained that the audiencia had interfered with his administration

of the finances and had suspended the payment of the drafts which

he had drawn on the treasury. He had no recourse on account of the

delay necessary before an appeal to the Council of the Indies could

be answered. He complained that the audiencia had meddled with affairs

of government on trivial pretexts, rendering him practically powerless.

During this period the internal troubles of the colony were

supplemented by the interference of the viceroy and audiencia in

Mexico. The latter had been reluctant to surrender their former

authority over the Philippines. There were conflicts of jurisdiction

between the viceroy and the governor and between the two audiencias

over a number of matters, among which affairs of a commercial nature

were preëminent. Both the authorities at Manila and those of Mexico

claimed jurisdiction over the galleons which plied between Manila

and Acapulco. [89] Numerous protests were made during this early

period against what was considered the unauthorized interference of

the Mexican authorities. Those in Manila felt that inasmuch as they

had an audiencia which was co-equal in power with that of New Spain,

they should be independent of the viceroyalty in all the affairs of

justice, government, and commerce.

The combined memorials of the residents and officials of Manila, which

we have already noted, were presented at court by a new procurator,

Fray Alonso Sánchez. The latter, a Jesuit, was a churchman of high

standing, and his abilities were recognized both at Madrid and in

Rome. Besides carrying commissions from the secular officials, he

represented the bishop, but the latter, distrustful of the influence

at court of a Jesuit commissioned by the secular government, with

which the prelate was constantly at war, determined to send one of

his own supporters to Spain to represent his interests. The emissary

of Salazar was Fray Francisco Ortega, of the Augustinian order. Ortega

followed Sánchez to Spain and rendered valuable service as procurator

of his order at Madrid. [90]

In written memorials and in personal interviews with the king

and with members of the Council of the Indies, Sánchez summarized

all the arguments heretofore given, asking for the abolition of

the audiencia. The newness of the country, the sparseness of the

population and the poverty of the inhabitants, according to his

argument, made such an institution a financial burden. If it were

continued, the salaries of the magistrates would have to be paid

from Mexico. An audiencia in Manila was not necessary, he urged,

since the chief element of the population was military, and hence

under martial law and jurisdiction. Even before the establishment

of the audiencia it had been necessary to send but few cases to

Mexico; indeed, alleged Sánchez, lawsuits seldom arose in the colony,

and the presence of the audiencia encouraged rather than prevented

litigation among the few merchants who lived in Manila. The discord

caused by the presence of the tribunal and the continual lawsuits

which it encouraged among the Spaniards had a disquieting effect on

the natives, who had no need of such an institution, and who did not

even understand its purposes. The audiencia, instead of serving as a

protection to the natives, was an instrument of tyranny. The Spaniards,

understanding the use of a court which would enforce the contracts

made between them and the ignorant Indians, were often supported

in the seizure of the latter's property, which act, in reality,

amounted to deprivation and legalized robbery. Sánchez stated that

the natives had been terrorized by the audiencia. The magistrates,

versed in the legal customs and practices of Spain rather than of

the Indians, were unfit to administer justice in the Philippines.

Sánchez also emphasized the international phases of the audiencia's

existence in the Philippines, though with conclusions slightly

different from those which we have already noted. He stated that

the presence of the audiencia had caused the Portuguese, in China,

formerly friendly, to be distrustful of the Spaniards, and this

had resulted in a considerable diminution of trade. This change of

attitude he attributed to the wording of the cédula by which the

tribunal had been created, extending its jurisdiction throughout the

"entire archipelago of China." Sánchez concluded his appeal with

the statement that some act was necessary to restore the confidence

of the Portuguese, whose influence, exerted upon the Chinese, could

spell ruin for Spain's Far Eastern colony. The cancellation of that

claim to China would remove all evidence of Spanish bad faith; it

would show to the Portuguese that the Spaniards had no desire to

encroach on their rights, and through the restoration of commerce

and prosperity the future of the colony would be assured. [91]

Sufficient has been presented to show that the audiencia, as

established in 1584, was not a success. The chief objection to the

tribunal was not its influence as a court; the real fault seems

to have lain in the indefiniteness of the articles of establishment

which gave it administrative powers, co-ordinate with the governor and

captain-general. Almost every difficulty occurred in the administrative

field. The audiencia also failed to preserve harmony between church

and state and added to these complexities by itself having dissensions

with the bishop. The petty character of the men who constituted this

particular government, their personal selfishness, and their eagerness

to take advantage, in dishonest ways, of the time and the distance

which separated the colony from the royal control, contributed to the

failure of the institution at that time. The audiencia was scarcely

established, and it certainly did not have time to adjust itself to

the new conditions with which it found itself surrounded, before

it was removed. It would seem that the authorities in Madrid were

somewhat hasty in withdrawing the audiencia, for it had proved its

efficacy throughout the entire Spanish empire. The ill success of the

Audiencia of Manila at this time does not prove that the institution

was a failure, or that its establishment was a mistake, for seven years

later it was returned and continued without interruption until 1898,

and continues still as then reorganized. The statement of Philip II on

November 25, 1595, "that experience had proved it to be unnecessary

in a land so new and unsettled" [92] can hardly be justified in view

of subsequent events.

The causes of the breakdown of the first audiencia may be found

in the circumstances of the time, the personnel of the tribunal,

the indefiniteness of the laws which created it, the novelty of the

situation to magistrates and officials and their failure to adapt

themselves to their duties and to one another. As an institution

of reform the audiencia did not have time to adjust itself to a

permanent status.

The king, in compliance with the demands of the various organizations

and individuals of Manila as communicated by their respective envoys,

abolished the Audiencia of Manila by royal cédula on August 9, 1589,

ordering the Viceroy of New Spain to take the residencias of all

officials who had been identified with the Manila government. To

carry out these orders Licentiate Herver del Coral was sent from

Mexico to Manila, where he arrived in May, 1590, in company with

the new governor, Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas. [93] Santiago de Vera,

the ex-governor, was promoted to a magistracy in the Audiencia of

Mexico; the oidor, Pedro de Rojas, was made teniente and asesor

to the governor, while the former oidor, Rivera, and Fiscal Ayala,

were left without office. [94]

The regular organization for the administration of justice in the

provinces was left precisely as it had been when the tribunal was in

existence. The alcaldes mayores and the corregidores still functioned

as judges of first instance and as governors of the provinces. The

alcaldes ordinarios remained the judges of first instance in the

city of Manila. These judges tried cases with appeal to the governor,

and the judgment of the latter was final in cases involving a value

of a thousand ducats or less. Cases of a higher category might be

appealed from the decision of the governor to the Audiencia of Mexico,

and thence, if again appealed, to the Council of the Indies.

The audiencia of three magistrates and a fiscal was replaced by a

governor, who was both captain-general and sole judge. He was assisted

in the latter capacity, as above noted, by a teniente and asesor,

a lawyer, who advised him in legal affairs and prepared his judicial

decisions for him. This reform was made on the representation of Fray

Sánchez, that Manila had no need of a judicial system more pretentious

than that of any Spanish provincial town. That city was accordingly

reduced to the rank of a city or district, with dependence in judicial

and administrative matters on New Spain, in whose audiencia appeals

from the governor of the Philippines were heard.

With these new reforms the leading authorities in Manila professed

to be greatly pleased. Bishop Salazar, who was the most influential

person in Manila at this time, expressed his satisfaction to the

king in a letter dated June 24, 1590. [95] He suggested, however,

that the continuance of the audiencia might have been satisfactory

could its members have been paid from the treasury of New Spain. He

reported the arrival of the new governor, and stated that the latter

had already given evidence of a desire to govern wisely and justly.

Salazar's optimism in regard to the good intentions of the governor

could not have been long continued, for Morga tells us that in the

first year of the government of Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas the need of

an audiencia was felt by many. [96] At that time, all the powers

of government were centralized in the governor, and there was no

immediate authority to which the people could apply for relief. Salazar

had many disputes with the governor over questions relating to the

respective spheres of the church and state, and from the decisions of

the executive the prelate had no recourse. Dasmariñas, on reporting

these matters to the king, stated that the bishop had interfered in

the matter of the collection of the tribute, the government of the

encomiendas, the Chinese trade (in which, the governor alleged that

the prelate had an unpriestly interest), and in the administration of

justice. [97] The prelate had interpreted the removal of the audiencia

as constituting a re-establishment of the concession formerly made to

the church of extensive control in the administration of government

and justice. He claimed that ecclesiastical judges should have the

same civil jurisdiction as they had exercised before the audiencia

was first founded. This, of course, the governor would not tolerate.

Bishop Salazar was so displeased with the turn which affairs had

taken in Manila that he determined to leave the Islands, and passage

being placed at his disposal by the willing governor, the bishop set

out in July, 1592. [98] On his arrival in Spain, Salazar concerned

himself principally with religious matters, securing some valuable

reforms. Among the latter was the erection of the Philippines into an

archbishopric and the creation of three subordinate bishoprics. Salazar

showed the desirability of the restoration of the audiencia as a

preventive check on the excesses of the governor, but this change

was not made as an immediate consequence of his recommendations.

A cédula was issued on January 17, 1593, which outlined with more

definiteness a judicial system for the Islands. This reform confirmed

the position of the governor as nominal head of the judiciary, with

jurisdiction over appeals from the lower courts, but it decreed that

these cases should be tried by a letrado. The governor's final and

conclusive jurisdiction was extended to all cases not exceeding a

thousand ducats in value. Cases of a greater value might be appealed

to the Audiencia of Mexico. [99] The governor was given authority to

name a protector of the Indians. [100]

The above changes were followed shortly by the cédula of August 18,

1593, by which the title of teniente de capitán-general y asesor

de gobernador y capitán-general de las Islas Filipinas was bestowed

on Don Antonio de Morga, who was probably the most efficient jurist

and one of the most versatile officials that Spain ever sent to her

Asiatic dependency. [101] Morga was at this time not only successor

to the audiencia in judicial matters, but also attorney-general and

sole legal adviser to the governor. His predecessor, Pedro de Rojas,

was transferred to Mexico, in pursuance of the idea, as alleged in the

order of transfer, of removing from the Philippines all the members of

the old audiencia, so that the new scheme, as revised at that time,

might be allowed to work itself out without prejudice. Before his

departure, the residencia of Rojas was conducted by Morga.

Even the reforms of 1593 did not suffice to make the administration

of justice satisfactory to all parties. From the large amount of

correspondence which exists, embodying complaints against the harsh

methods of Dasmariñas and his successor, Tello, three letters may

be cited which show the attitude of the various officials of the

colony towards the re-establishment of the audiencia. The first of

these was written by Governor Dasmariñas himself, and it may be in

some ways surprising to note that he asked for the restoration of the

audiencia. His reasons, in part, however, were different from those

advanced by his contemporaries. Dasmariñas was of the opinion that an

audiencia would be effective in the nullification of the interdicts

and excommunications imposed by the archbishop and the local prelates,

which he claimed were working havoc with the civil government. [102]

The treasury officials complained that the absolute government of

the executive was contrary to the interests of real hacienda. Their

objections to the prevailing system were voiced in the second

of the memorials alluded to above, that of Francisco de la Misa,

factor of the royal treasury of Manila. [103] Misa said that under

the former arrangement the audiencia had audited the accounts of the

royal treasury and of the city of Manila each year. In this way the

accounts had been well kept and the funds properly accounted for. The

removal of the audiencia had left the governor with authority over

the nomination of the officials of real hacienda, as well as the

supervision of the accounts. Since Dasmariñas had been governor, no

accounts had been rendered by the minor officials of the treasury,

and, as a consequence, their superiors had been unable to make up

their reports for the Contaduría of Mexico. The governor's attention

had been called to this deficiency repeatedly, but the latter had

displayed no interest in the state of the colony's finances, which,

said Misa, exceeded all other matters in importance. "This comes," the

factor observed, "from placing in charge of Your Majesty's finances a

soldier, unfitted to do else than command troops, and then unchecked

by an audiencia, so far distant from your royal person." The laxity

of the governor and of his subordinates seems to have resulted in

the loss of much revenue.

Misa also showed that there had been many irregularities in the

sale of offices, deficiencies which the presence of an audiencia

would have checked. Instead of selling the minor clerkships of the

exchequer, the governor had given them to his friends. Two offices,

which were by no means insignificant, those of the chief clerkships

of government and of justice, respectively, had been sold formerly

for four thousand pesos each. The governor, however, had preferred

to have them on his civil patronage list; this would not have been

permitted had an audiencia been present to enforce the law.

The governor was charged by Misa with extravagance in the expenditure

of the revenue of the colony. The payment of the salaries of new

appointees to offices, friends of the governor, had made heavy drains

on the treasury. The king, by repeated cédulas, had forbidden the

designation of an excessive number of alcaldes and corregidores because

of the desirability of economizing the resources of the colony. While

the audiencia was in existence its consent had been necessary for

the creation of new judicial districts, but since the recall of the

tribunal, the governor had trebled the number of provincial officials,

and, in addition, had permitted each to have a salaried assistant.

According to Misa, various other evils had resulted from the

absolutism of the governor, among which were numerous abuses which

he had tolerated in the galleon trade. It was alleged that Spanish

merchants in Mexico had sent money to agents in Manila, and in that

way had caused the legal amount brought from Acapulco for investment on

the annual galleon to be exceeded. [104] This, the factor stated, was

due partially to the laxity and corruption of the Acapulco officials,

who had permitted the galleon to leave that port with more than the

authorized amount of money. The governor of the Philippines, however,

could have prevented this abuse had he been so inclined, as the

ships' manifests were always subject to his inspection on arrival

at Manila. The money sent by the merchants of Mexico was invested

in merchandise in the Islands and these goods were shipped back to

Acapulco on the galleon, thus excluding the commerce of the local

merchants. The latter were growing poorer daily while the governor

and his friends were waxing richer. The governor had also exercised

favoritism in the distribution of cargo space, thus rewarding his

friends and punishing his enemies. [105] Since the suppression of the

audiencia these abuses had increased, as there had been no authority

in Manila to hold the governor in check.

This memorial, from Misa, which was carefully considered at court,

went far toward demonstrating that the restoration of the audiencia

would have beneficial results, so far as the administration of real

hacienda was concerned.

The third of the letters referred to as reflecting the attitude of

the Manila officials toward the re-establishment of the audiencia

and ultimately contributing to its restoration, was directed to the

court by Antonio de Morga, the efficient lieutenant-governor. Morga,

as did Misa, placed great emphasis on the need in Manila of a more

efficient system for the administration of the exchequer. Morga

was moderate in his characterization of the governor, alleging that

Dasmariñas had been brought completely under the influence of the

ecclesiastics. He expressed the belief that an audiencia would aid

in combatting what he termed the retrogression of the colony under

the influence of the priests. "There should be someone," he wrote,

"to oppose the ecclesiastics in a land so far away from the Audiencia

of Mexico; for, no matter what question is sent there for decision, at

least two years must elapse before despatches can be returned." [106]

No official was better qualified to explain the needs of the colony

in matters of justice than Morga, for he was at that time, in reality,

the supreme court of the Islands.

The audiencia, after an interregnum of seven years, was restored

by a cédula promulgated by Philip II, November 26, 1595. [107] The

tribunal was to consist of a president, who should also be governor and

captain-general, four oidores, a fiscal, and various subordinates. The

history of the former audiencia and the reasons for its suppression

and re-establishment are summarized in the cédula as follows:

I established an audiencia in that city and province in order

that everything might be governed by means of it, and that justice

might be administered with the same universal equality, mildness,

and satisfaction desirable; after its establishment I ordered

it suppressed as experience proved it unnecessary in a land so

new and unsettled; in its place I sent a governor, and though his

administration was excellent, yet, inasmuch as that community had

grown, and I hope that it will continue to grow, I have thought

it advisable to found and establish the said audiencia again.

In this cédula, which was addressed to Governor Tello, the king

pointed to the increased importance of the Philippines, and to the

many expeditions by which the Island of Luzón and other islands of

the Archipelago had become pacified and more densely settled. The

increase of commerce with the Chinese was also cited as a reason

for providing the Islands with a more stable government. It was

stated that in the administration of justice there should be as much

efficiency as possible without the loss and inconvenience involved

in appealing cases to Mexico. The governor would have more time for

his increasing administrative and military duties if disengaged from

his former judicial functions. The cédula continued:

You [the governor] may find it advisable to have by you persons

with whom to take counsel, in order that matters may be considered

with the requisite conformity and by a sufficiently large body of

advisers; for these reasons I have decided to form an audiencia;

... you shall be its president, holding that office with those

of my governor and captain-general. [108]

Together with this decree of re-establishment the king issued special

instructions to Tello, prescribing in detail the relations which the

governor was to observe with the audiencia. These instructions, in

general, sought to prevent the recurrence of the misunderstandings

which had been so fatal to the earlier tribunal. The governor and

oidores were ordered to co-operate in the formulation of commercial

regulations, with a view, particularly, to securing the Chinese trade,

in the enforcement of the pancada, [109] the consideration of ways and

means to prevent money from passing to China, in matters of taxation

and finance, encomiendas, and the pacification and government of

the wild tribes. By these instructions, it is important to note,

the function of advising the governor in administrative matters was

definitely bestowed upon the oidores. "Matters of importance," the

cédula prescribed, "the said president-governor shall discuss with the

oidores of the said audiencia, so that the latter, after consultation,

may give him their opinion." [110]

The governor and the magistrates were jointly charged to do all

possible to discourage Indians and Spaniards from wasting their

means in fruitless and petty lawsuits. The natives, according to

this new reglamento, should always be protected against the designs

of those who would take undue advantage of them. The governor was

moreover instructed to confer with the archbishop and audiencia in

ecclesiastical affairs, and the prelates were especially forbidden

to excommunicate and issue declamations from the pulpit against the

officials of the civil government, such as were constantly proclaimed

when Salazar was bishop. Priests were not to meddle with the civil

government, or with the pancada, or with any form of trade.

The audiencia as reformed, with the powers and duties noted, began

its life in Manila on May 8, 1598. The inauguration of the tribunal

was attended with general rejoicing, and a celebration characterized

by great formality and pomp. The royal seal was conducted through

the city in a procession which was composed of all the royal and

clerical dignitaries. Church, state, and citizenry united in expressing

satisfaction at the restoration of the tribunal, with its consequent

prospect of an efficient government and administration of justice.

Reforms were made in the scope and composition of the audiencia at

various times during its existence. It developed from a commission

of three magistrates, with a president at its head, with definite

and ill-expressed powers over a vast archipelago, whose population

was sparse and scattered, to a double-chambered tribunal of appeal

in second and third instance, with definite jurisdiction over a

well-organized commonwealth. It would be highly desirable, did space

allow, to review chronologically the important reforms which were

made in the organization, scope and jurisdiction of the Audiencia of

Manila throughout its history. The most important of these, however,

will be noted incidentally in the following pages.

The audiencia, from the time of its renewal onward, typified and

represented the royal authority, and its tenure was more continuous

than the governorship. Eight times subsequently did the audiencia

assume the reins of government in lieu of the governor. It became

the most reliable channel through which the royal authority made

itself felt in the Islands, and it was especially utilized by the

court as a check on the governor. [111] Whenever occasion arose,

the audiencia interposed as the intermediary and arbiter between

dissenting parties in the name of the sovereign, and its decrees were

listened to with respect. It was no longer a temporary organization,

and so firmly established was it henceforth that no person seriously

considered its recall a possibility. Through a period of three

hundred years the audiencia exercised its functions. It was first

and always a judicial body. It shared executive and administrative

duties with the governor. It frequently exercised attributes of an

advanced legislative character. It participated in the government of

the provinces. It shared the authority of the royal patronage in the

control of ecclesiastical affairs. These various activities will be

studied in subsequent chapters.