CHAPTER VIII

THE AUDIENCIA AND THE GOVERNOR: CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION

Although it may be said that the relations of the governor and the

audiencia were comparatively peaceful and harmonious throughout the

history of the Philippines, there were many conflicts of jurisdiction

and these struggles for power assume great prominence on account of

their bitterness. An investigation of the principles underlying them

and the arguments advanced by the contending parties will go far

towards explaining the relationship of the audiencia with the governor.

Certain factors and conditions were always prevalent in the colony

to cause trouble and provoke enmity between the governor and

the oidores. Chief among these were the rivalry between them for

commercial profits, jealously of power and advancement, and the

desire on the part of all, and particularly of the governors, to

enrich themselves. Officials tended to regard their appointments

as commissions to engage in profitable ventures and business

undertakings--opportunities which were to be immediately improved. It

is probable that the presence of the audiencia did more to check

this tendency than any other agency, for the documents bearing on

the history of the colony are replete with charges made by oidores

and fiscales against governors. It is also true that the oidores

did effective work in correcting the misdeeds of the provincial

governors and justices on their official tours of inspection. That the

audiencia should accomplish this result was to be expected, since the

leading purpose of its establishment was to check the excesses of the

governor. The other side of the question cannot be neglected, however,

for charges were made in sufficient number against the oidores. It

is with these charges and counter-charges, memorials, complaints,

and arguments that the present chapter is concerned.

The method to be pursued in this chapter will be that of indicating

in all fairness both sides of these conflicts, not with the purpose

of seeing which side was right, but with the object of obtaining

the respective viewpoints of the governors and magistrates. We shall

first consider evidence which was submitted in behalf of the audiencia

against the governor, and in turn, that of the governors against the

oidores. This method of procedure is the only one feasible since the

materials here utilized consist mostly of arguments for or against

the governor or audiencia, respectively.

We have already seen that the first notorious disagreement in the

colony arose between Bishop Salazar and Governors Ronquillo de Peñalosa

and Santiago de Vera. This occurred before the establishment of the

audiencia. The audiencia was in fact established partly to have an

impartial tribunal present to arbitrate such disputes, and partly to

check the excesses of the governor. [519] We have also given attention

to the charges made by Oidor Dávalos against his fellow-magistrates

and the governor shortly after the audiencia was established. It has

been noted that the incessant quarreling between the governor and

the audiencia from 1584 to 1589 was one of the causes for abolishing

the tribunal at the latter date. From 1590 to 1595 the governor was

supreme in matters of government, war, and justice. It was clearly

shown during this period that the discord of a quarrelsome tribunal

was eminently to be preferred to the unchecked abuses of an autocratic

governor. In 1595 the audiencia was re-established by royal enactment;

from that date onward it became a permanent part of the government,

notwithstanding the fact that its relations with the other institutions

of the colony were not harmonious.

There were two complaints most frequently made against governors. One

of these was their commercial excesses and the other, their abuse

of the power of appointment. The former consisted of the monopoly

of galleon space for themselves, or their friends, the acceptance

of bribes from merchants for various favors, or the manipulation of

the Chinese trade in some way for their own advantage. The tendency

of governors to appoint their friends and relatives to office,

notwithstanding the royal prohibition, and the apparent inability of

the audiencia to prevent this was a source of complaint, especially

during the early years of the colony. [520] Dishonest proceedings in

the sale of offices, including the retention of the money received and

the disposal of offices to friends for nominal sums, were among the

irregularities of the early governors. These abuses the magistrates

often knowingly permitted in return for some favor allowed them

by the governor. That the laws which forbade these abuses of the

power of appointment had been openly and flagrantly violated was

a charge brought up repeatedly in the residencias of governors and

magistrates. An examination of the correspondence of the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries would almost lead to the belief that the

home government despaired of ever righting these wrongs, and left

them unpunished, rather directing efforts towards reform in other

channels in the hope of remedying greater defects.

Perhaps no governor more flagrantly disregarded the audiencia

and the royal authority which it represented, or more frequently

laid himself open to complaints on account of his violent conduct

than Alonso Fajardo, who ruled from 1618 to 1624. Numerous charges

were brought against him by the audiencia, some of which concerned

itself, and some had to do with the general administration of the

government. It was charged that Fajardo sought to usurp the judicial

functions of the tribunal, and to assume control of the administration

of justice. He had on one occasion broken up a session of the court

during the trial of a certain person for murder, ordering a sergeant

to take him out and hang him. Fajardo defended himself against this

accusation by alleging that the criminal was a sailor from the royal

fleet, whom he, as captain-general, had already condemned, and that

the audiencia was acting illegally in entertaining the case. Fajardo

was said to have released prisoners at his own pleasure, and to have

abused the pardoning power. He had made threats of violence against

the magistrates in the court-room.

The audiencia not only complained against this governor's interference

with the exercise of its functions as a court, but it manifested a

wider interest than the purely judicial by complaining against the

excesses of the governor in his own administrative field. The charge

was made that Fajardo had bought up due-bills and treasury certificates

from the soldiers and other creditors of the government, at less than

their face value, and had presented them to the oficiales reales,

realizing the full amount on them, and retaining the proceeds. He

was charged with exacting large sums from the Chinese in exchange for

trading privileges, retaining the money himself instead of putting it

into the treasury. He was said to have forced loans from the merchants

in order to make up financial deficits, and to have taken money out of

the treasury, secretly, at night. Another charge brought against him

was that of allowing favorites to go out and meet the incoming ships

of the Chinese, thereby obtaining for himself and for them the choice

parts of the cargoes in advance of the merchants of Manila. [521]

There is no evidence that the tribunal was able to put a stop to

these abuses.

Oidor Álvaro Messa y Lugo, in a letter written to the king on July 20,

1622, continued the campaign which had been started by the audiencia

against this governor. He claimed that Fajardo had sought to prevent

officials and private citizens from sending complaints to Spain against

him by examining all the outgoing mail before it left the colony. The

oidor showed that wastefulness, private trade, bribery, carelessness

in the administration of the exchequer, neglect of shipbuilding,

corruption, and personal violence were among the misdeeds of this

governor. Messa reported that he had tried unsuccessfully to authorize

the auditing of the accounts of the galleon for two successive years,

in accordance with the royal instructions which ordered that it

should be done at the termination of each voyage by the fiscal and

two oidores. [522] Messa said that the governor feared to have the

colony's finances examined for it was well known that they were in

a deplorable state.

One instance of the governor's financial ingenuity which was given

by Messa, illustrates the limitations placed by the audiencia on the

governor's appointing power. The audiencia relieved the secretary of

government, Pedro Muñoz, of his office upon the expiration of his

term, selling the place to Diego de Rueda for 8000 pesos. Fajardo

dispossessed Rueda and restored the office to its former incumbent

for 1500 pesos. The audiencia's action in disposing of this office

without the consent of the governor was justified by a law promulgated

on November 13, 1581, ordering that offices should be bestowed only

upon persons of such qualities and attributes as met with the approval

of the royal justices. [523] The governor emerged triumphant in this

contest, however, because it was generally recognized at that time

that his word should be final in matters of appointment. Although

we have seen in a former chapter that the governor consulted with

the audiencia when an important appointment was to be made, the

audiencia's intervention in matters of appointment depended largely

on the strength of the tribunal and the relations existing between

it and the governor. During this administration the audiencia was

notoriously weak and harmony did not exist.

The memorial presented by Messa y Lugo was chiefly concerned with the

story of his own arbitrary arrest and imprisonment at the instigation

of Fajardo on trumped-up charges, as he alleged. The judicial inquiry

lasted two months, and it furnishes an excellent example of the power

of a governor over a weak audiencia. The occasion for the investigation

had been a disagreement between the governor and the oidor over

the latter's claim to act as administrator of the property of Oidor

Alcaraz, who had died in office. The governor, by the appointment

of a magistrate favorable to himself as juez de difuntos, had hoped

to control the administration of the property, since Messa was under

sentence of residencia, and the remaining magistrates of the audiencia

were favorable to him. Moreover, Fajardo wished to forestall certain

charges of misgovernment which he knew that Messa was prepared to

make against him. Consequently the governor designated an alcalde of

the city to conduct the residencia. Messa was given practically no

opportunity to defend himself. His property was sequestrated, even

to his wife's clothing. Seeing that he could not obtain justice,

he escaped from prison and took refuge in a Dominican convent.

Messa, from the seclusion of the monastery, challenged the legality of

the governor's procedure. According to his contention, the previous

law authorizing the governor to name an alcalde ordinario to try

an oidor, was now a dead-letter. Its chief defect had been that an

alcalde, who was the creature of the governor, would always aim to

render a decision pleasing to his master. He urged that the law

then in force authorized the governor to proceed with the trial

of an oidor, only upon consulting the audiencia, and moreover that

resulting condemnations, if they were personal or corporal, should be

confirmed by the Council of the Indies. [524] Messa therefore claimed

that the governor had no authority to proceed with this case alone,

since "those nearest (your Majesty), as are the auditors (oidores),

cannot be imprisoned or proceeded against except by your Majesty or

the royal Council, or by your order."

The oidor then proceeded to show the extent to which, in his opinion,

the governor might intervene in the sessions and proceedings of the

audiencia. He wrote:

The president, in virtue of his superintendency over the Audiencia,

may ordain to the auditors what may be the just and reasonable

in matters that pertain to the government and its conservation;

and even, in the heated arguments that are wont to arise between

the auditors, has authority, in case the nature of the affair

might require it, to retire each auditor to his own house, until

they make up the quarrel; and, should he deem it advisable,

he may inform your Majesty. For the ordinance does not say that

the president and alcaldes shall proceed, arrest, sentence and

execute justice in criminal cases affecting the auditors. [525]

This is the interpretation which Messa placed upon the law giving

authority over the trial of magistrates of the audiencia to the

governor.

Messa then proceeded to discuss other matters relative to the

respective spheres of the governor and audiencia. The governor had

broken open the chest of the audiencia, extracting a large sum and

spending it without accounting for the expenditure, and without

any beneficial results. He was guilty of four murders, one of his

victims being his wife. The audiencia should be empowered to try him

for these crimes, but it lacked jurisdiction. During his term Fajardo

had exercised such absolute power that justice had been paralyzed and

litigants were holding back their suits from trial because justice

could not be obtained in the audiencia. The governor had sent from

the Islands more than a million pesos in goods and money, all of

which he had obtained through fraudulent and illegitimate means.

The governor had quarreled finally with the oidores who had remained

faithful to him; one of these had become incapacitated through

sickness, while the other had taken refuge in a Jesuit convent. The

audiencia was thus dissolved. The governor, feeling the need of

a tribunal, withdrew the charges against Messa, and ordered the

latter to come back and resume his office. The oidor complied, but his

hostility toward the governor had in no way abated. Messa concluded his

memorial with the request that a visitor should be sent to the colony

to investigate the charges which had been made against the governor,

and at the same time to restore the audiencia to its rightful position

in the colony. He stated his conviction that the office of governor

should be abolished, and that the audiencia should be empowered to

act in his place. This belief he justified by the statement that the

audiencia had already successfully acted in the capacity of governor

and had administered affairs with great satisfaction.

The power which the governor had of imprisoning and chastising

magistrates of the audiencia who dared to oppose him, enabled him to

emerge victorious in his struggles with that body. He was even able

to completely suppress the audiencia. Nevertheless he was obliged,

through the need of the tribunal which he had vanquished, to restore

it again, although it was opposed to him. In no less than three cases

governors, in order to comply with the law requiring that there should

be at least one oidor of royal appointment, were obliged to restore to

the audiencia magistrates who had formerly been under arrest. Being in

possession of all the powers of an executive, the governor was usually

able to reduce the audiencia to subserviency, unless the dispositions

of the opposing oidores were such that they would not submit. On

the whole, the audiencia seemed unable to check the excesses of the

governor, by virtue of its authority, and the oidores were obliged

to confine themselves to protests and appeals to the king; these,

only after years of delay, effected the removal or punishment of the

governor and the appointment of another to continue his excesses.

The complaints which Messa made on this occasion resulted in bringing

to the Islands a visitor who conducted a lengthy, though somewhat

tardy, investigation. Fajardo was already beyond the punishment of

earthy kings and tribunals. But his property was seized and his

heirs were fined; aside, however, from the removal of various of

Fajardo's subordinates, the government was but little better for the

protestations and appeals made by the audiencia. The oidores, instead

of obtaining the desired reform measures, were usually rewarded for

opposing a tyrannical governor and appealing to the court for support,

by a reprimand for quarreling and an admonition to be quiet and

peaceful, to preserve harmony, to attend strictly to their own affairs,

and to abstain from interference with the government. Indeed, judging

from the many similar replies which the oidores received in answer to

their charges against governors, it appears that the preservation of

harmonious relations between the officials of the colony was much more

important than good government. Usually, however, in these struggles

between the audiencia and the governor the contentions of one side

or the other were based on law and justice. The effectiveness of

the Spanish colonial government would have been greatly increased

had the Council of the Indies taken advantage of these opportunities

to investigate the principles at stake and support the right side,

rather than by issuing impotent injunctions and remonstrances.

The most significant controversy which ever occurred in the Philippines

between the governor and the audiencia arose in connection with the

banishment of Archbishop Pardo in 1683. It is not the purpose here

to give a detailed account of the Pardo controversy, which will be

discussed again in connection with the relations of the audiencia and

the church. However, since this episode involves certain incidents

illustrating important phases of the relationship of the governor and

the audiencia, it is desirable to refer to it here in considerable

detail.

The real occasion for this conflict was the defiance of the laws of

the royal ecclesiastical patronage by the archbishop, who insisted on

making ecclesiastical appointments without consulting the governor. The

governor appealed to the audiencia for support, and the tribunal

exercised jurisdiction over the case on the basis of its right to try

cases of fuerza and to prevent ecclesiastical judges from infringing on

the civil jurisdiction. Juan Sánchez, the secretary of the audiencia,

relates that, owing to the interference of the Dominicans and Jesuits,

and their harsh public criticism from the pulpit of the audiencia and

government, "the royal Audiencia felt obliged to advise its president,

then Don Juan de Vargas, that he should apply a corrective to these

acts." [526] This corrective was the banishment to Spain of certain

individuals of the Dominican order to answer for their misdeeds

and ultimately the exile of Archbishop Pardo from the city. It is

enough to say that Governor Juan de Vargas Hurtado and the audiencia

acted in harmony on this occasion, presenting a solid front to the

ecclesiastical power. When the new governor, Curuzaelegui, arrived,

however, he forced the audiencia to ask pardon and absolution from

the archbishop, which the magistrates did on their knees. The new

governor disgraced Vargas in the residencia, waiving for a time

the residencias of the oidores. Pardo was recalled from exile, and

the audiencia was forced to legalize his restoration to his see on

October 25, 1684. Thus the new governor and the archbishop triumphed

over the combined forces of the ex-governor and the audiencia.

It is clear that the power of the new governor was derived chiefly

from his status as royal vicepatron, acting in conjunction with the

archbishop. This power Vargas had formerly employed in co-operation

with the audiencia, and thereby both had gained their victory over

the prelate before the arrival of the new governor. Curuzaelegui used

the same authority to recall Pardo; and in so doing he was probably

the only governor in the history of the Islands who ever supported

a prelate against the advice of the audiencia. The combination of

a governor and an audiencia was much more frequent, as we shall

see. The position of the governor was strengthened, also, by his

commission to conduct the residencia of Vargas, and the respect

which the audiencia had for him was increased by the fact that in

judging the ex-governor's misdeeds he was also authorized to hold

the oidores responsible for all their official opinions and acts

in acuerdo with the disgraced governor. [527] Another source of the

governor's strength was to be found in the royal instructions which

he carried with him to stop the quarrels previously existing in the

colony. The oidores very prudently submitted to the new governor,

and therefore, for a time, they were patronized by the latter, who

utilized their intimate knowledge of local affairs to aid him in

obtaining control of the government and familiarizing himself with

it. Meanwhile he literally held the residencia over their heads.

The attitude of the new governor toward the audiencia during the first

six months may be described as conciliatory. That he did not act with

entire independence of it is attested by the fact that when Vargas

appealed to the tribunal against the ecclesiastical penalties imposed

by the archbishop, the governor signed the act ordering the absolution

of his predecessor. When the archbishop persisted in his intention

to humiliate Vargas on the ground that the Inquisition demanded such

action, the new governor threatened again to expel the prelate if

he did not desist. [528] His pacificatory efforts also resulted in a

temporary cessation of the hostility between the archbishop and the

audiencia; he held private conferences with the oidores, manifesting

repeatedly his determination to proceed harmoniously with them. As

a result of this treatment, the magistrates were emboldened to urge

that the return of the prelate was contrary to law, and inconsistent

with all precedent.

Finally, unable to resist the pressure exerted by the archbishop,

and obtaining advance information of the royal condemnation of the

audiencia for its acts in the banishment of Pardo, the governor

arrested, imprisoned, and exiled the magistrates, temporarily

reconstituting the tribunal with local and more subservient

members. [529] Curuzaelegui's proceedings were thenceforth as

high-handed as they had formerly been conciliatory, and from that

time onward the residents of the colony were subjected to the rule

of an absolute governor, aided by an unscrupulous and vindictive

prelate and a subservient audiencia. Just before his imprisonment,

Magistrate Bolívar, in a letter to the Minister of the Indies,

described the chaos existent in Manila as follows:

Here there is no will, save that of a governor, since he is

absolute, we all had to acquiesce, under compulsion and pressure,

in the restitution of the archbishop; [530] ... to state the

case in few words, the archbishop does whatever suits his whim,

without there being anyone to restrain him. [531]

Fray Luís Pimentel, a Jesuit, in a letter which he wrote to a friend,

stated that the arrest of the oidores by the governor had been inspired

by personal spite and a desire for revenge. He had desired to punish

magistrates Viga and Bolívar, particularly for their opposition to him

in matters of administration and in his trading-schemes. The governor

was also said to have been actuated by a suspicion that these oidores

had formulated elaborate charges of misgovernment against him, and

he desired to prevent these complaints from reaching the king. [532]

Pimentel proceeded to relate that the governor then found himself

embarrassed without the aid of an audiencia, and had accordingly

formed another of his own selection. This body was careful to execute

the governor's will in every particular; consequently there was no

check on his misrule. This new audiencia approved all the acts of

the archbishop and refused to entertain the appeals of the ex-governor,

royal decrees were despatched against the preachers (Jesuits)

who zealously proclaimed from the pulpits the arbitrary and

malicious character of the recent acts, and the Dominicans alone

had the privilege to utter whatever absurdities they pleased in

the pulpits.... No authentic statement of the evil deeds of these

years can be sent to the court for the scriveners are intimidated

and will not give official statements of what occurs, except

what may be in favor of the governor and the archbishop. Item,

(this) is written in much distrust and fear, on account of the

numerous spies who go about prying into and noting everything

that is done. [533]

Pimentel stated that the archbishop, who was a Dominican, had used

this rupture between the governor and the audiencia, and the favor of

the governor, particularly, as an occasion and pretext for imposing

on the Jesuits and Franciscans. He had deprived them of their lands

and parishes, and had obtained many favors for the Dominicans and

Augustinians at the expense of the rival orders. "It seems as if

the governor had come to the islands," Pimentel wrote, "for nothing

else than to encourage the Dominicans in their rebellious acts, to

trample on the laws, to abolish recourse to the royal Audiencia, to

sow dissension, to be a tyrant, to disturb the peace, and to enable

the archbishop to secure whatever he wishes, even though he imposes

so grievous a captivity on the commonwealth." [534]

The Pardo controversy and its consequences show the extremes to which

a weakened audiencia was reduced on occasion by a new governor who

came to the Islands, armed with recent royal decrees instructing

him to bring about peace and order. Curuzaelegui, assisted by the

royal visitor, who bore instructions even more recent than those

of the governor, imprisoned and exiled the oidores, confiscated

their property and brought about their ruination and death. He

then appointed another audiencia of his own choice. All these acts

were strictly legal, and in accordance with his instructions. The

governor's conduct before the appointment of the visitor was more

lenient and tolerant than afterwards. This shows that he realized the

necessity of fulfilling the royal will, the policies of which were

entrusted to Valdivia for execution, even at the expense of harmony

with the local tribunal. Had he not been assured of the support of

the church on the one hand, and of the royal approval on the other,

as shown by the commission of Valdivia, it is improbable that he

would have broken with the audiencia, or would have attempted to use

his power so extensively. The presence of an audiencia was necessary

to the government of Curuzaelegui. This is shown by his conciliatory

attitude toward the tribunal of Vargas, until he knew that it was

under the condemnation of the king, also by his own act in forming

a new one. This controversy clearly illustrates the extent to which

a governor might use his power, and it shows, on the other hand,

the indispensable character of the audiencia, even at a time when it

was least powerful. Curuzaelegui, in the name of the king, completely

obliterated the legally constituted audiencia, appointing another to

serve until it could be legalized by regular appointment.

Chronologically speaking, the next great struggle which throws

light on the subject which we are considering, occurred during the

administration of Governor Bustamante (1717-1719). The audiencia was

reduced to a deplorable state of helplessness and inefficiency on

this occasion, and the circumstances surrounding its relationship

with the governor were in many ways similar to those which have

been described. For a period of two and a half years antecedent

to the coming of Bustamante, the government of the Philippines had

been nominally in the hands of the audiencia, but in reality, under

the control of the senior magistrate, Torralba. One of the first

acts of Bustamante, after his arrival in the Islands, was to take

the residencia of Torralba, and this investigation led him to make

serious charges against the other magistrates. In the residencia which

followed, the finances of the colony were found to be in bad condition,

and all the officials of the civil government, as well as many of

the churchmen, were discovered to be deeply interested in private

trade, to the neglect of their duties and to the detriment of the

government. Large amounts of money were found to have been smuggled

without permission into the colony on the galleon from Mexico. The

accounts of the treasury department were discovered to have been

loosely kept, and many of the officials, including magistrates of the

audiencia, were found to be serving without financial guarantees. [535]

Bustamante immediately took steps to re-organize the government and

to place the finances of the colony on a sound footing. He put a stop

to the smuggling, forced the merchants to pay the authorized duties,

and imposed fines on those who had been guilty of negligence and

misconduct. At the end of six months the efforts of Bustamante had

netted a sum of 293,000 pesos to the royal treasury. His successful

efforts towards clearing up the finances of the colony, making

every person pay his just dues without regard to position, rank,

or affiliation, and the seeming harshness of his methods incurred

general hostility and contributed largely to his downfall. [536]

His investigation of the finances was said to have revealed a

shortage of over 700,000 pesos, for which he held Torralba and the

other magistrates responsible, putting, most of the blame, however, on

Torralba. All but one of the magistrates were arrested and incarcerated

in Fort Santiago. Before this was done, however, Bustamante asked

the advice of the archbishop, the religious corporations, and the

universities, as to what steps he should take in the matter. He

recognized that he would be seriously embarrassed without an audiencia,

but the investigations which he had made showed that all of the oidores

were guilty of misappropriation of the government funds. Would he

be justified in forming an audiencia of his own selection, composed

of duly qualified lawyers, with one minister of royal designation

remaining? It was his opinion that the presence of one regularly

appointed magistrate would lend legality to the entire tribunal, so he

asked advice as to which of the three oidores would be most suitable to

retain. He cited as a precedent in favor of his reconstitution of the

audiencia the action of Governor Curuzaelegui in 1687 and 1688 when he

exiled and imprisoned the oidores and reformed the audiencia with his

own appointees. Bustamante proposed to do exactly what Curuzaelegui had

done, that is, to act as president himself, appointing the fiscal as

oidor, and designating a duly qualified lawyer and an assistant fiscal

to fill the other vacant places. Bustamante expressed an apparently

sincere desire to do justice to all. He desired, particularly, that the

administration of justice in the courts should be allowed to proceed

without interruption and without that loss to the commonwealth which

would come from the absence of a tribunal. [537]

The replies given by the orders on this occasion involve important

laws and principles which underlie the nature of the audiencia and its

relation to the governorship. The archbishop, in a subsequent report to

the king on the government of Bustamante, stated that all the religious

authorities in the colony advised the governor against the destruction

of the audiencia, and questioned the authority of the prelate to

constitute another. [538] It seems, however, from an investigation

of the letters, that the Jesuits counseled the governor in favor of

the proposed action. The reasoning of the Jesuit theologians was as

follows: there should be retained in the Philippines, according to

the Recopilación de Indias, [539] four oidores and a fiscal for the

proper administration of justice, and if the fiscal were the only

remaining member of the old audiencia he would become an oidor in

case of a vacancy, by virtue of the recognized law. [540] Owing to

the multitudinous duties of the oidores and to the great importance

of the audiencia, great harm would arise if there were not enough

magistrates. Since the governor's jurisdiction extended to all

departments of government, it was the opinion of the Jesuits that

it was incumbent on him to take such steps as might seem necessary

for the preservation of the government. This was specially imperative

since it was his duty to see that there was no delay or neglect in the

administration of justice. Inasmuch as the audiencia was indispensable

to him as vicepatron in its jurisdiction over ecclesiastical affairs,

and because of its consultative powers in all affairs of government

and finance, the governor should have the right to create an audiencia,

if one did not exist, or if the members who were regularly constituted

by royal appointment were incapacitated from service. [541]

The opinion of the Dominicans of the University of Santo Tomás differed

widely from that advanced by the Jesuits. Their advice coincided

with that of the archbishop, being to the effect that it would not be

convenient to qualify one of the ministers alone, but that all of them

should be restored to the audiencia. This meant that Bustamante should

recede from his position, remove all the oidores from prison, and

accept them as an audiencia. If the three oidores deserved punishment

it would be unfair to the remaining two magistrates to exempt one,

and such action would lay the governor open to charges of inconsistency

and favoritism. The Dominicans contended that only the king in council

could suspend or remove oidores, and that such power was not given

to any other authority, not even to a viceroy. [542] Though

in Sicily and Naples this right is granted, in the Indies the

contrary is true, because only the king that appointed them may

suspend them, and it is commanded that the viceroys must not

interfere with or impede their jurisdiction. [543]

The Dominicans were of the opinion that the governor had authority

to discipline the oidores, but in so doing he could not go so far

as to remove them from the tribunal unless commanded to do so by

the Council of the Indies. Whatever disciplinary action the governor

might decide on, it should not be taken on his own authority, but in

the execution of the orders of the Council of the Indies.

This opinion, the Dominicans alleged, was in accordance with the laws

of the Indies. [544] They cited, in support of their argument, an

instance in which the king reproved Gálvez, the Viceroy of New Spain,

because, without the authority of the Council, Gálvez had suspended a

magistrate of the Audiencia of Mexico, whom he should have honored and

to "whom he should have accorded the treatment of a colleague." [545]

The Dominicans expressed the opinion that the prosperity of the

Islands and the welfare of the government depended on the audiencia,

and though it might be desirable to remove the oidores for personal

guilt, it could not be done in this case without wrecking the entire

government. The king, himself, had shown respect for the inviolability

of the audiencia when, in 1710, he had judged all the ministers to be

equally guilty of not having fulfilled the laws and ordinances on the

occasion of the coming to the Islands of the Patriarch of Antioch,

[546] satisfying himself with the removal of the decano only and

allowing the other magistrates to remain.

Disregarding the advice of this learned body, turning a deaf ear to

the protestations of the archbishop, and heeding only the counsel

of the Jesuits, which was more favorable to his wishes, Bustamante

proceeded to execute his own will in a manner which proved distasteful

even to the order whose advice he was following. [547] He arrested

and imprisoned the guilty magistrates and created a new tribunal

out of his own clientele, leaving only Villa, a former magistrate,

in office. The latter protested against the action of the governor,

and retired to the convent of Guadalupe, near Pásig. Informed that

there was a conspiracy against his life and needing the counsel of some

person, or persons, on whom he could rely, Bustamante was well-nigh

desperate. His government, as it then stood, lacked the complexity of

legality which the presence of one oidor of royal nomination would

have given it. In order to remedy this defect he released Torralba,

the guiltiest of the former magistrates, and the man under arrest for

the defalcation of 700,000 pesos of the king's revenue. Torralba's

crimes had been notorious, and the act of Bustamante in associating

himself with a person of the unsavory reputation and the unpopularity

of Torralba not only divorced him from whatever popular sympathy he

might have had among the residents of the colony, but it aroused the

hostility and antagonism of the Jesuits who had been heretofore the

governor's friends. Aside from the unfortunate character of the act,

it was also illegal, being contrary to the law which directed that in

case an oidor were suspended from his place he should not be restored

without the consent of the king and the Council of the Indies. [548]

The newly constituted audiencia busied itself at once with the task

of government. Archbishop de la Cuesta, among others, questioned the

legality of the tribunal's opposition to the excommunication of its

members. He was arrested by the governor, and then arose the contest

which culminated in the murder of Bustamante, in the suppression of

his audiencia and in the first officially recognized government by a

prelate in the Philippines. The archbishop reappointed all the former

magistrates to office, with the exception of Torralba, and the misdeeds

of the government of Bustamante were saddled upon the ex-magistrate.

Two noteworthy considerations stand out prominently in connection

with this struggle; first, the influence of the governor over the

audiencia, and his power to deprive regularly appointed magistrates

of their positions and to constitute a new audiencia if he chose,

notwithstanding the prohibition of the laws, and, second, the complete

control by a governor over an audiencia which he had created. It is

not necessary to state that the Madrid government discredited all

the later acts of Bustamante's administration, including the recall

of Torralba, who was a self-confessed criminal under arrest, when

restored by the governor. There is nothing to show, however, that the

king disapproved of the acts of Bustamante in creating a new audiencia,

unless it were the royal approval of Cuesta's act of reconstituting

the old tribunal. Torralba, in his residencia, was made to suffer for

all the misdeeds of his government (in reality that of the audiencia,

Torralba being decano, 1715-1717), as well as for those of Bustamante

(1717-1719).

The audiencia, after it had been reconstituted by the

archbishop-governor, neglected to investigate the causes of the

governor's death, alleging as a reason that

this proceeding will greatly disturb the community; that to

proceed against these persons will be to cast odium on and grieve

nearly all the citizens, since the commotion was so general;

that all those who went out on that occasion did so "in defense

of the ecclesiastical immunity, the preservation of this city,

the self-defense of its inhabitants, and the reputation of the

[Spanish] nation;" and that to carry out this plan would be likely

to cause some disturbance of the public peace. [549]

In a word, the influence of the archbishop was sufficient to keep

the audiencia from undertaking a formal investigation of the causes

of the governor's death. It was quite generally recognized that the

murder had been committed in the interests of the prelate, probably

by an assassin who had been in his pay, or in that of his friends,

the Jesuits. This is another illustration of the subserviency of

the audiencia to the governing power, on this occasion a churchman,

who had actively participated in the removal of his predecessor.

An interesting though ineffective protest was made by the audiencia

against the appointment of José Basco y Vargas as Governor of the

Philippines in 1778. A communication was sent to the court describing

the abject state into which the king had degraded the audiencia by

subordinating it to a man whose title and rank as Captain of Frigate

gave him only the right to be addressed as You, while each of the

magistrates enjoyed the title of Lordship. The Council rejected the

complaint as an absurdity, after which certain oidores conspired

to bring charges against Basco y Vargas, to arrest him and to make

Sarrio governor. The latter had been ad interim governor after the

death of Anda, and he was at that time the beneficiary of the title and

position of segundo cabo, or second in command of the king's forces in

the Islands. Sarrio refused to join the magistrates in their revolt

against the governor. Basco y Vargas was informed of their treason,

and it is significant that he complied with the royal laws, not

by attempting to punish the offenders himself, but by sending the

recalcitrant magistrates to Spain where they were dealt with by the

Council of the Indies. [550]

This was only a prelude to the discord which existed throughout the

administration of this able governor. The king was obliged to issue

special cédulas on various occasions, ordering a cessation of the

perpetual discord. [551] Basco y Vargas formed a society for the

advancement of the economic interests of the Islands, [552] and in

that, as well as in his successful organization of the profitable

tobacco monopoly, he was opposed by the audiencia. The tribunal claimed

that the governor was limiting its sphere of authority in inaugurating

these reforms. [553] Basco y Vargas recommended and brought about the

separation of the superintendency of real hacienda from the rest of

the government. This the audiencia also opposed, but in the contest

over jurisdiction which ensued between the governor and the intendant,

the governor and the audiencia acted in complete harmony, because this

new official threatened their mutual interests and prerogatives. [554]

Outlawry and highway robbery became so common throughout the Islands

during the term of Basco y Vargas that the governor appointed

prosecutors, sheriffs, and judges-extraordinary to assist in the

preservation of order, which the alcaldes mayores were not able

to accomplish by themselves. The audiencia, feeling that this was

a grave intrusion upon its prerogatives, appealed to the king and

succeeded in bringing the sovereign displeasure upon the head of

the governor. The royal cédula stated that there was no need of

these additional officials. The judicial machinery which had been

provided for the Philippines from the beginning was sufficient. The

governor was warned, furthermore, to abstain from meddling with the

jurisdiction of the audiencia. [555] This case confirms the statement

already made in this treatise that during this period and, in fact,

after the establishment of the regency in 1776, the governor exercised

a diminished authority in judicial affairs. When Basco y Vargas took

his office as governor of the Philippine Islands, he was obliged to

subscribe to two oaths, one as governor, and the other as president

of the audiencia, but he was warned by a special decree of the king

to keep from confusing these two functions as former governors had

done. [556]

Many disagreements took place between the audiencia and Governor

Marquina, who succeeded Basco y Vargas. Marquina quarreled with the

audiencia over almost every act of government in which he had relations

with the tribunal. Marquina was said to have repeatedly disregarded

the acuerdo and to have done as he pleased in matters wherein the

audiencia had been or should have been consulted. There was a bitter

contest in 1789, shortly after the arrival of this governor, because

he had excused various officials of real hacienda from appearing when

summoned to the audiencia to serve as witnesses. Marquina did this, he

claimed, because they were needed in the provinces as financial agents,

and because their absence from their posts of duty would entail a grave

loss to the government. The audiencia solved the matter by forwarding

all the correspondence relative to these cases to the Council of the

Indies. It may be said that Marquina, in exempting these witnesses,

was acting in his capacity as president of the audiencia, but in

his solicitude that no loss should occur to the royal exchequer he

was acting as superintendent of real hacienda, which was within his

authority. [557]

In 1790 Marquina recommended the abolition of the audiencia on the

grounds that its continued presence constituted an obstruction to

the harmonious working of the machinery of government. He said that

the tribunal was a powerful weapon in the hands of men who used it

for their own personal advancement. In the place of an audiencia

he suggested the substitution of three asesores, one for civil and

criminal cases, one for real hacienda, and another for commerce and the

consulado. These asesores would have jurisdiction over the cases which

corresponded to these three departments. This scheme, he believed,

would effectively provide for all the judicial cases arising in the

Islands. [558] To this scheme, however, the Council paid no heed.

Considerable attention has been given in another chapter to

the charges made by the audiencia against Marquina at the

time of his residencia. These complaints show that a state of

continual disagreement had existed between these two authorities

throughout the entire term of the governor, and the bringing of

these charges was instrumental in making Marquina undergo a very

strict investigation. Personal jealousy was no small factor in these

continual recriminations. At no subsequent date, however, were the

large issues at stake which were characteristic of the struggle between

the audiencia and the governor at the time of Fajardo, Curuzaelegui,

and Bustamante. Those were death-struggles on the issue of whether

the audiencia should be an independent tribunal or whether it should

be subservient and subject to the governor. During those struggles the

tribunal was momentarily suppressed, or converted into an instrument,

in the hands of the governor. But these were exceptional cases, and

during the greater part of the long period of three hundred years

the relations between the audiencia and the executive were not so

discordant as they would seem to have been, judging by the instances

cited in this chapter. The audiencia, on all occasions of dispute

with the governor, was able to offer a formidable resistance to his

so-called encroachments on the prerogatives of the tribunal. Although

the governor, on most of the occasions noted above, occupied the

stronger position, owing to his more recent instructions, the support

given to him by the church, and his control of the residencias of the

magistrates, nevertheless it may be said that either authority was

sufficiently powerful and independent to be respected as an antagonist

by the other, and each was indispensable to the other.

These disagreements have been discussed in the foregoing pages largely

from the view-point of the audiencia. Practically all the charges and

complaints which have been cited were made in behalf of the audiencia,

and these show the magistrates in almost all cases to have been acting

in defense of their rights against usurpation and tyranny. Fairness

demands, however, that the other side should be presented in the

same manner. [559] Reference will now be made to a few of the many

memorials heretofore unquoted, which were sent by various governors

in protest against the alleged excesses of the audiencia.

As a first instance we may note the criticisms which Governor Gómez

Pérez Dasmariñas made of the first audiencia which served from 1584

to 1589. We shall also consider the complaints which Dasmariñas made

against Pedro de Rojas, former oidor and later teniente and asesor of

that governor (1589-1593). Dasmariñas came to the colony shortly after

the first audiencia had been suppressed and from his correspondence

one may estimate the prevailing opinion of the tribunal which had

been recently removed. The governor wrote as follows:

As the royal Audiencia was here so haughty and domineering, he

(Pedro de Rojas) retains that authority and harshness, with which

he tries to reduce all others as his vassals. In the matters of

justice that he discusses, he is unable to be impartial, but is

in many matters very biased. This is because of his trading and

trafficking, which the president and all the auditors (oidores)

carried on from the time of their arrival--and with so great

avidity, trying to secure it all to themselves, that I find no

rich men here beside them. This is the reason why Rojas ... and

the auditors opposed the pancada in order that the consignments

of money sent by them to China might not be known--which, at last,

have come to light. [560]

The governor charged the audiencia, moreover, with having opposed

the three per cent tax levied for the construction of the city

wall. Indeed, he accused the magistrates of having influenced

the friars to oppose all his acts as governor. He referred to

the commercial excesses of the oidores, saying: "If the matter of

inspection and the residencia held here had fallen to my order and

commission, as it fell to that of the Viceroy of Nueva España, I

would have proved to your Majesty the investments of past years." He

concluded with the statement that Rojas had been so busy with gain that

he had been unable to attend to his other duties; he was "puffed up

with the authority and name of auditor" (i. e., oidor). He protested

against the transfer of Rojas to an office in Mexico, "for," he wrote,

"such men go delighted with their interests and gains from trade here,

they are fettered and biased by their relations with the trade of

this country."

Thus we see that even this early in the history of the Islands,

the oidores as well as the governors were accused of a predominating

interest in commercial affairs.

Governor Pedro de Acuña recommended the suppression of the audiencia

in 1604, although he said that he had had no serious trouble with

that tribunal. His chief reason in favoring its removal was that

an appreciable saving would be realized thereby. The audiencia was,

moreover, very unpopular in Manila. He alleged that the name of oidor

was so odious that it was in itself an offense. He stated that affairs

had come to such a pass that

because I, in conformity to what your Majesty has ordered, have

attempted to maintain and have maintained amicable relations

with the auditors; and have shown, on various occasions, more

patience and endurance than the people considered right; and more

than seemed fitting to my situation, in order not to give rise to

scandal; some have conceived hatred for me, publicly saying that

... I was neglecting to look after them, and that I could correct

the evil which the Audiencia was doing. But as I cannot do that,

it has seemed to me the best means to let the public see that

there was good feeling between me and the Audiencia. [561]

Here we have the case of a governor, who, in order to get along in

harmony with a quarrelsome and unpopular audiencia, gave way to it

on many occasions, and even incurred the displeasure of the residents

of the colony on account of what seemed to them to be the governor's

easy-going attitude. His zeal for the king's service, as he expressed

it, moved him to recommend the abolition of the tribunal. He said that

the audiencia would not be missed if it were removed, since there

were only twelve hundred residents in the colony and there were few

cases to be tried. Most of the suits arising in the Islands could

be adjudicated by the alcaldes ordinarios and appeals could be sent

to Mexico. The acuerdo, or administrative session, Acuña alleged,

existed in name only.

Acuña made practically the same charges that have been so often

repeated already in this chapter. The magistrates had interfered

in the appointment of officials, which the governor claimed as his

sole prerogative. Each magistrate was accompanied on his journey

to the Islands by a vast company of relatives and dependents,

who came to get rich. These persons ultimately monopolized all the

offices. Notwithstanding the king's orders which forbade that offices

should be held by relatives of oidores, the governor was placed in

such a position that if he did not allow these persons to hold office,

the magistrates would take revenge by opposing him at every turn, thus

ruining the success of his administration. [562] The same was true of

trade, for these relatives had to live, and if the government could

not support them, they had to be assigned privileges and advantages

in trade, which the oidores by virtue of their official positions

could guarantee. [563]

In view of all these abuses and evils which, directly or indirectly,

proceeded from the audiencia, Acuña maintained that all the powers of

government, war and justice, should be concentrated in the office of

governor and captain-general. The country, he said, was more at war

than at peace. It was essentially military, by virtue of its location

and isolation. Acuña contended that all authorities and departments

of the government should therefore be dependent on a military chief

rather than on a high court of justice which was out of sympathy

with the spirit and needs of the colony. In a government so new as

that of the Philippines, the same laws and punishments should not

be enforced so rigidly as in more settled parts, yet the magistrates

of the audiencia had failed to understand that their functions in a

colony of this character should be in any way different than those of

a similar tribunal in Spain. Acuña stated that there had been occasions

in which the audiencia, in possession of partial evidence in regard to

a military matter, had interfered with an action which the governor

had wished to take. He had thus been rendered powerless to exercise

sovereignty which rightfully belonged to him, and which, if put into

effect, would no doubt have been for the best interests of the colony.

In addition to the above representations, the governor laid great

stress on the financial advantages which would be derived from a

suppression of the tribunal. He stated that the colony was short

of money, a condition of which the magistrates were well aware,

yet they always insisted on being the first to collect their own

salaries, to the exclusion, if necessary, of all other officials in the

colony. [564] With the money saved from the abolition of the audiencia,

an armed fleet could be provided for the defense of the Islands. This

was badly needed, and there was no other way of obtaining the necessary

ships. The Chinese rebellion of the year before [565] had caused

a diminution of 46,000 pesos in the commercial duties collected,

[566] and the consequent shortage of money in the treasury of the

colony furnished further reasons for the dismissal of this useless

and burdensome tribunal. Acuña admitted that the institution of

the audiencia might be successful in larger dependencies of Spain,

where the people were prosperous and where the government had an

assured income, but in the Philippines, where the citizens were poor,

with scarcely any means of support, and harassed by many magistrates

and their dependents, the audiencia had been a failure and a serious

burden.

Acuña's concluding statement very aptly sizes up the situation and

voices his demand for the abolition of the tribunal. He wrote:

The difficulty which presents itself to me in this matter is

that, if the Audiencia is abolished and everything left in charge

of the governor, there will be but slow and poor remedy for the

grievances and disorders which may occur. For they must be taken to

the Audiencia of Mexico, which is so far away that the aggrieved

ones would consume both life and property before the business was

settled ... all say that they consider government by one person the

best, when he governs justly. These men (who believe in the above)

know what the governor can do without the Audiencia, and with it;

and they believe that it is better when there are not so many

to command them, for they have never seen the audiencias redress

illegal acts by the governors.... Although there is no doubt that

much of what this paper recounts occurs in other regions where

there are audiencias, it must be remembered that in this country,

which is the newest of all and more engaged in war than any of the

others; and where the hardships of conquest and maintenance are

so omnipresent; and your Majesty has little profit or advantage,

except the cargo of cloth which goes to Nueva Hespaña (sic), and

which is divided among all; and as the resources of the country are

so scant that there is no place to go in order to seek a livelihood

outside of Manila: there is much criticism in this matter, and the

people are much aggrieved at seeing themselves in the utmost part

of the world, harassed and troubled by so many magistrates and

officers and their dependents, and at having so many to satisfy;

and that matters are in such a state that he who has an auditor

for a protector may, it appears, go wherever he wishes and with

as much as he wishes, and he who has not must be ruined. [567]

This brings us to the administration of Governor Alonso Fajardo

(1618-1624), whose relations with the audiencia we have already

shown to have been very unpleasant. Fully as many charges were

brought against the oidores by that governor as were put forward

by the magistrates against him. According to Fajardo, the oidores

had so used their power of appointment that it amounted to virtual

dictation. Fajardo, like Acuña, found his control over the filling

of offices greatly diminished. He energetically protested against the

proposition which had been made to increase the size of the court from

four to five magistrates. He stated that the amount of legal business

which came before the tribunal did not justify an augmentation of

the number of oidores; he recommended that the magistrates should

spend their time more advantageously, and waste less in quarreling

among themselves and in wreaking their passions on their rivals. Like

Acuña, Fajardo complained against the presence of so large a number

of relatives and personal followers of the oidores, whose lust for

office had to be satisfied. [568] The magistrates had engaged in trade

through intermediaries, and had spent the time which should have

been devoted to the administration of justice in devising schemes

whereby they and their agents could get the most out of forbidden

commercial transactions, and at the same time be protected in their

illicit activities. Fajardo claimed that the magistrates had abused

their positions to such an extent that they had become an intolerable

incumbrance to the colony.

Strife and discord between the audiencia and the governor were perhaps

more bitter during the administration of Fajardo than at any other time

in the history of the Islands. This governor accused the magistrates

of deliberately attempting in all petty and inconsequential ways to

harass him into compliance with its desires. He wrote that he had

done everything possible to keep peace with the oidores, even at a

sacrifice of the respect of the other elements of the colony. [569]

This testimony is practically identical with that submitted by

Governor Acuña in 1604. The influence of the tribunal in the matter of

appointments, judging by this and by other statements and allegations

already quoted, and by the laws themselves, must have been great.

The tendency to fill offices with friends and relatives was

characteristic not only of the magistrates, but of the viceroys and

governors as well. More laws are to be found in the Recopilación

which guard against such abuses by governors and viceroys than by

the magistrates of the audiencia. [570] Bearing in mind, of course,

that there are two sides to the question, it is at least clear that

the audiencia was successful in one of the purposes for which it was

created--namely, that of preventing the governor from exercising entire

control over appointments. We have the confession of Governor Fajardo

here and of Governor Acuña in the preceding paragraphs that those

governors were unable to prevent the oidores from filling offices with

their own friends. Although we have been following the governor's side

of the question in these last few pages, we have noted in the preceding

chapter that the laws of the Indies gave to the audiencia the right of

participating in acuerdo with the governor in matters of appointment.

Governor Fajardo's method of referring matters to the audiencia

for advice is interesting. Instead of submitting questions to the

acuerdo for the general advice and opinion of all the oidores, he was

said to have sought to escape the obligation of acting in accordance

with the advice given him, by asking the oidores for their individual

opinions concerning matters on which he desired advice. The audiencia

took exception to this method of procedure, alleging that he was

thus escaping the responsibilities of the acuerdo. Fajardo defended

himself against the accusation by the statement that the oidores met

together so seldom that he had been unable to submit questions to

the magistrates collectively in accordance with the law.

Fajardo also complained against the failure of the oidores to comply

with his instructions in regard to the inspection of the provinces. He

stated that the magistrates disliked to bestir themselves from their

inactive and indolent lives amid the comforts of Manila, and no

inspections had been made during the three years prior to the date

of this letter. Philip III, without raising his voice in indignation

or decreeing any punishment upon those officials who had refused to

execute his decrees, mildly solicited that they should devote their

care and attention to the matter in the future. He remonstrated that

this was the only way in which the facts relating to the country and

to the interests and needs of its people could be ascertained.

These inspections are very essential, since they are based on the

relief of miserable persons, and in no way can the condition of

affairs be fully ascertained unless by means of these inspections;

and the most advisable measures can hardly be well understood,

if the condition and facts of what ought to be remedied and

can be bettered are not known. Hence I again charge you to

pay especial attention to these inspections. The Audiencia

is commanded to observe the orders that you shall give in your

capacity as president so that each auditor, when it concerns him,

may observe his obligations and go out on the inspections. [571]

In reply to these observations, the Council ordered Fajardo to

make recommendations for the reform of the government, stating

that such suggestions as he would make would be duly considered and

observed. [572]

On his arrival in the Islands, Fajardo, as yet unfamiliar with the

duties and conditions of his office, expressed his unwillingness to

recommend the entire abolition of the audiencia, preferring to have

present a council which he could consult regarding the problems of

his new office. The tribunal in the Philippines was probably not so

important as were those in Spain, under the immediate supervision of

the king, "where," as he expressed it,

one obtains strict justice, administered by upright and holy

men--the people here considering that those who are farthest from

meriting that name are those who are farthest from the presence

of your Majesty and your royal counselors.... In what pertains

to me, I do not petition you for anything in this matter, since

in no respect can it be ill for me to have someone to consult,

and who will relieve me in matters of justice. [573]

Fajardo's act in forming a new audiencia after he had suppressed the

real one shows that the audiencia was essential to him in the two

particulars mentioned by him in the above letter.

That his attitude towards this question was somewhat altered by three

years' experience as governor of the Philippines is shown in his

memorial of July 21, 1621. On this occasion Fajardo argued against

the continuation of the tribunal, showing himself to be of the same

opinion as Acuña, who, it will be remembered, contended that because

the colony was military in character, there should be one person to

control affairs, without any interference whatsoever. He wrote:

I beg your Majesty that while it shall last (the war) you may

be pleased to discontinue the Audiencia here, as it is this that

most hinders and opposes the administration and the government,

... This is the enemy which most afflicts this commonwealth, and

most causes dissensions, parties, factions, and hatred between

the citizens--each auditor persecuting those citizens who are not

wholly of his own faction, especially those who extend aid and

good-will toward the governor, against whom, as it seems, they

show themselves always in league. They always make declarations

of grievances [against him] because they are not each one given,

as used to be and is the custom here, whatever they may ask

for their sons, relatives and servants; and they habitually

discredit the governor by launching through secret channels false

and malicious reports, and afterward securing witnesses of their

publicity. They even, as I have written to your Majesty, manage to

have religious and preachers publish these reports to which end,

and for his own security, each one of the auditors has formed an

alliance with the religious order which receives him best. [574]

He summarized as follows:

I consider this government much more difficult, with the auditors

of this Audiencia, than it is or would be even if there were more

war, for that war which they cause within its boundaries appears

beyond remedy, on account of their abilities and rank. [575]

An abundance of evidence exists on both sides of this controversy;

letters of complaint against the governor and charges against the

oidores by the governor. The vividness and apparent directness of

the charges and the apparent sincerity of both the governor and the

oidores make it extremely difficult, and, in fact, quite impossible

to decide on the basis of the evidence presented, who was right or

wrong, which charges, true or untrue, and who was really responsible

for the difficulties. It would appear that the king was prone to

sympathize with the governor rather than with the audiencia, for in

practically all cases the decision of the sovereign was adverse to

the tribunal. The fact that the governor was the royal representative

was probably a large factor in securing him the support of the home

government. Yet, on the other hand, the audiencia was in the same

sense the royal tribunal.

Governor Fajardo affords an example of a successful military man

who, having won fame for himself in the wars of the continent, but

without legal knowledge or administrative experience, was called to the

government of a distant and isolated colony, with the responsibility of

continuing in harmonious relations with a hostile civil and judicial

tribunal on the one hand, with whose powers and functions he was

not familiar, and an equally hostile religious institution on the

other. Men of military training usually had great contempt for the

abilities and good intentions of priests and lawyers in those days,

and it was frequently evident, both by their actions and by their

own confessions, that conquistadores of the stamp of Fajardo, Acuña,

and Corcuera were little fitted for the exercise of administrative

and governmental functions, however useful they might be in adding

to the domain of the Spanish empire.

Thus, there being present in the colony a tribunal of trained lawyers

who were at the same time capable and experienced administrators,

the governors became accustomed to rely on them for advice and

assistance, in compliance with the commands of the laws of the

Indies. As one governor of military tastes and training succeeded

another, each lacking administrative ability and experience, the

audiencia came to assume an increased share in the governmental

activity of the colony. This tendency was accentuated by the fact

that the governor was absent from the capital city on campaigns of

conquest and defense a large share of his time. Ability as a soldier

and commander was always the chief criterion for the selection of a

governor and captain-general, and military affairs were given more

attention by far than matters of administration. Spain's policy

of selecting soldiers instead of administrators for the post of

governor went far towards making the audiencia more than a court of

justice, and towards giving it a share in the executive functions

of government. This tendency was also furthered by the fact that

the audiencia came to assume the entire administration on the death

or absence of the governor, a power which it did not always exercise

well, but which it always relinquished with reluctance.

The Salcedo affair in 1668-1670 emphasizes other differences than

those of the audiencia and the governor, yet reference should be

made to it in this connection, because, after all, the oidores were

concerned indirectly in the struggle. An examination of the data at

our command will reveal the fact that the refusal or failure of the

oidores to intervene in behalf of the governor led to his defeat and

humiliation by the commissary of the Inquisition. The audiencia might

have prevented that disaster had the magistrates been so inclined.

Before Governor Salcedo was arrested, imprisoned and sent to Mexico

in 1668 by the commissary of the Inquisition on charges of a purely

ecclesiastical character, the two oidores, Bónifaz and Montemayor,

were consulted by the enemies of the governor as to the legality

of the proposed action. There is every reason to believe that the

entire plot was worked out beforehand with the fore-knowledge and

consent of the oidores. Inharmonious relations had existed before the

arrest of the governor between Salcedo and his associates, because

of his independence and his unwillingness to provide offices and

opportunities for commercial profit for their relatives. The exact

part which the audiencia played in the arrest of Salcedo is not known,

since the entire plot was schemed and executed under the cloak of the

Inquisition; but the fact remains that Oidores Montemayor and Bónifaz

each hoped to assume the management of governmental affairs upon the

exile of Salcedo. Indeed, the ambitions of Bónifaz were realized. The

removal of Salcedo culminated in the usurpation of the government by

Bónifaz, in the exile of Montemayor, his rival, to the provinces, and

in the complete suppression of the audiencia for a year. It is said

that Bónifaz, through a usurper, ruled beneficently and well, and that

he little deserved the sentence of death which was pronounced on him

by the Council of the Indies. The authority for the assertion that

his rule was meritorious was ecclesiastical and hence, in this case,

possibly questionable. [576] It is certain, at least, that Bónifaz and

his government were under the complete domination of the church. [577]

It has been frequently stated in this chapter, that jealousy and

rivalry were always determining factors in the relationship of

the audiencia and the governor. A new executive, until familiar

with the duties of his station, was always glad to seek the advice

and assistance of the oidores, meanwhile permitting the audiencia

to assume many functions which belonged to him as governor. A new

governor was gracious, and agreeable to all, and we find that most

of the favorable comments made concerning governors by magistrates,

prelates, and officials were pronounced when the environment was new

to them or to the governor. When the routine of official duties became

irksome and opportunities for private profit presented themselves,

as always happened in the course of time, friction arose, and jealousy

and discord took the place of the goodwill and harmony which at first

seemed so promising.

The most contaminating influence in the colony was the commercial

spirit. Governors and magistrates engaged in trade on a large scale,

and the churchmen also yielded to the commercial instinct. The latter

assertion will be enlarged upon in its proper place; proof of the

commercial activities of governors and magistrates has already been

given. The resentment of the oidores always led them to place every

conceivable opposition in the way of the governor when it was seen

that he was obtaining more than his fair share of profit from trade,

appointments, or indulgences to the Chinese. This led to a refusal

to ratify his appointments in many cases, to oppose him in the

acuerdo, to incite the residents of the colony against him, and to do

everything possible to make a failure of his administration. Governors

on the other hand might employ one of two methods in dealing with the

magistrates. That most commonly pursued was to allow them a liberal

share of the booty, commercial or political, the latter obtained

by permitting them to disregard the law by giving offices to their

relatives and followers, thereby purchasing their favor. The other

method was to meet their charges with counter-charges, which were

probably as truthful, though usually not so serious as those which the

magistrates made against them. The administrations of those governors

who openly opposed the audiencia and sought to keep it within the

limits of its jurisdiction as a judicial tribunal, were most notable

for their conflicts.

The Court of Madrid was unable to remedy these defects in colonial

administration. It could and did discipline the officials by sending

an occasional visitor, or by forcing them to give vigorous residencias,

but these punishments only led to greater abuses in order to reimburse

themselves for the fines which they had to pay. Officials were able

to send away large sums of money and consignments of merchandise,

and then, after having paid liberal penalties, they returned

to Spain and lived in comfortable retirement. Acceptance of the

office of governor, oidor, corregidor, or alcalde mayor was made

with a foreknowledge that disputes would arise, enemies would bring

accusations, and punishments would be meted out, whether deserved or

not. This condition led to the abuses which have been noted, and the

recriminations and struggles between authorities. From the view-point

of these officials the Philippines were neither governed for the good

of the natives nor for the residents, nor for the honor of Spain, nor

for the propagation of the Catholic religion, but merely for the profit

and advancement of those who were on the ground to take advantage

of their opportunities. They were struggles for profit; pure and

simple contests between the officials either to get all the proceeds

possible from their offices or to keep other officials from getting

all, and thus to get a share for themselves. There were exceptions,

of course, to the conditions and circumstances just noted. Some

able and well-intentioned men came to the Islands, as came to all of

Spain's colonies, among whom may be mentioned Oidor Antonio de Morga,

the fiscal, Francisco Leandro de Viana, and Governors Anda y Salazar,

Basco y Vargas, Aguilar, Enrile, and others of the nineteenth century

when opportunities for gain were somewhat diminished. Some of these

officials erred on the side of over-strictness, and their efforts to

restrain the avarice of their colleagues and to infuse the spirit of

honesty into their administrations united the opposition and led to

battles as violent and unrelenting as those which were fought when

all parties were dishonest.

In a chapter which deals alone with the conflicts of jurisdiction

which occurred between the governor and the audiencia, it would be

possible to arrive at an entirely mistaken conclusion. Disagreements

and differences were frequent as well as pronounced, yet the history

of the Philippines throughout the three hundred years of Spanish rule

is not a record of perpetual strife. It is, of course, understood

that no effort has been made in this chapter to describe all the

struggles which occurred in the Islands between the audiencia and

the governor. Those which have been reviewed were selected for the

purpose because they illustrate, in a general way, the subjects over

which disagreements arose, and the principles underlying them.

We have noted, in general, that the audiencia exercised functions

and prerogatives which were not conferred upon it by the laws of the

Indies. The type of men who were appointed to the office of governor

and captain-general made inevitable the accretion of power in the

hands of the magistrates. The audiencia gradually came to assume

more attributes than the solely judicial ones. Necessity compelled

the governor in many instances to entrust the tribunal with many of

his own functions because of his lack of skill and experience as an

administrator or on account of his devotion to military affairs. In

these ways the acuerdo came to be legislative as well as advisory; the

frequent absence of the governor, or his death, led to the audiencia's

assumption of the governorship and the tribunal was always reluctant

to surrender the administrative powers once gained.

Jealousy between officials and the resultant conflicts of authority

may be classified together as a cause of strife. These difficulties

resulted in part from the fact that the sphere of authority of each

official was not defined with exactness in the laws of the Indies,

and also because those laws were often countermanded by later

cédulas of whose existence the colonial officials were not always

aware. Spanish laws were frequently repealed and subsequently put

in force without notice; this was always a source of confusion. Then

again the exceptional opportunities for trade offered by the transfer

of the rich oriental cargoes at Manila tempted oidores and governors

alike. The trading privileges conceded by the government did not

always end when the limit of permission was reached. Some officials,

and particularly governors, could command more than their rightful

share of galleon space; this led to disputes and recriminations which

often interfered seriously with the government. We have noted that the

appointing power which belonged nominally to the governor and which was

shared by the oidores was also a source of much trouble. The knowledge

that the residencia would ultimately bring about the punishment of

guilty officials and enemies, the distance and isolation of the colony,

and the length of time necessary for communication--all these factors

made it possible for officials to commit excesses. Another cause of

discord was what might be termed the reaction of the executive against

the increased power and authority of the audiencia. This accretion

of power was due to the complete dependence of the governor on the

tribunal in administrative matters, especially at the beginning of

his term, the increasing power of the acuerdo, the superiority of the

audiencia as a court of appeals from the decisions of the governor,

and the fact that the latter always needed the presence of the

audiencia to lend legality to his government.

It may be stated, nevertheless, that the governor actually held the

more powerful position in the colony, and that he most frequently

emerged victor in the various struggles with the audiencia. Various

reasons may be assigned for this. The governor was the personal

representative of the king, and in this capacity he had the backing

of the home government. He commanded the military forces in the

colony. The authority of the royal patronage was vested in the

governor; he was thus often able to command the support of the church

and clergy in his struggles with the audiencia. The authority over the

disposal of offices, either by sale or appointment belonged legally to

the governor, although this power was effectively disputed and often

shared by the audiencia. The governor employed the last-mentioned power

on some occasions to the extent of reforming and reconstituting the

audiencia, thus making the government entirely dependent on him. A

new governor always carried with him a more recent appointment than

those of the oidores whom he found in the colony, and aside from this

he usually possessed definite instructions embodying the royal will

on all current issues. The control of the residencias of the oidores

was usually in the hands of the governor, and lastly, the laissez

faire attitude of the Spanish government, its extreme conservatism,

and its apparent reluctance to correct the evils and abuses which

were reported to it--all these were potent factors in leaving the

balance of power as it had been, in the hands of the governor,

notwithstanding the presence of the audiencia.

A previously quoted statement made by a famous British historian in

his description of the relative powers of the viceroys of New Spain,

and Perú, and their respective audiencias, may be used here, with

equal effect, to characterize the situation in the Philippines, and

to summarize this part of our discussion: "They (the magistrates of

the audiencia) may advise, they may remonstrate; but in the event of

a direct collision between their opinion and the will of the viceroy

(governor), what he determines must be brought into execution, and

nothing remains for them but to lay the matter before the king and

the Council of the Indies." [578]