THE AUDIENCIA AND THE CHURCH: THE ROYAL PATRONAGE
The audiencia was frequently brought into contact with the
powerful ecclesiastical organization in the Philippines. We have
already referred in this book to some of the notable occasions of
this relationship. Before the establishment of the audiencia the
church exercised an extensive authority in governmental affairs. The
ecclesiastics aided the civil government by administering justice in
the provinces when there were no civil courts. The prelates of the
Islands, the provincials of the religious orders and even the friars
advised the governors and provincial officials on Indian affairs
and the administration of the encomiendas. When the advice of the
church was solicited by the home government as to the advisability of
removing the audiencia, the suggestions of Fray Alonso Sánchez and
Bishop Salazar went far toward bringing about a final solution of
the problem of government in the Philippines. [690] These were some
of the ways in which the influence of the church was impressed upon
the audiencia.
The creation of an audiencia, with judicial and advisory functions,
put an end to the exercise of these extraordinary powers by the
church and tended to confine its activities to the ecclesiastical
field. Nevertheless, the prelates continued to advise the governors
in administrative matters throughout the entire history of the
Islands. Their influence was especially strong in matters relating
to the natives, their government and protection, and the archbishops
even went so far at times as to give advice on questions of foreign
policy. Most of the time this counsel was solicited and was well
received. From 1650 onwards, as we noted in the last chapter, the
church waxed exceedingly strong in the Philippines and the prelates not
only advised, but dominated governors and audiencias. In 1668, Governor
Diego Salcedo was unseated, imprisoned and exiled by the commissary
of the Inquisition, while a pliant magistrate of the audiencia took
over the government and administered affairs in a manner entirely
satisfactory to his ecclesiastical supporters. The period from 1684 to
1690 showed the weakness of the audiencia when opposed by a powerful
prelate allied to a hostile governor. And in 1719 the church reached
the climax of its power by bringing about the murder of a governor,
and then succeeding him, overcoming every opposing element in the
colony, including the audiencia. From that time onward the prelates
governed during vacancies in the governorship--something which the
audiencia had failed to do. Finally, in 1762, Simón de Anda y Salazar
assumed the reigns of government and the obligations of defense,
an act which was sanctioned technically because he was an oidor but
really because he was an able man, capable of accomplishing what the
church had failed to do.
In this chapter it is not our purpose to review the historical facts of
the relations of the audiencia and the church or the growth of clerical
influence over the audiencia. These matters have been referred to in
earlier chapters. It is rather the design to study here the influence
which the audiencia, in its turn, exercised in ecclesiastical affairs,
noting whence it derived its authority and what was the nature of
its powers.
The audiencia was established as the ultimate local authority,
co-ordinate with the governor (or the viceroy in New Spain or Perú),
for enforcing the laws of the royal patronage. [691] Not only was
it authorized to act as a tribunal in these matters, but also to
officiate as an active executive agent. It is clear that although
the governor was the royal vicepatron, he was not expected to act
alone and unsupported in dealing with the powerful and often hostile
ecclesiastical authority. In former chapters of this treatise
attention has been given to the considerations which forced him
to share the duties and responsibilities of government, finance,
commercial supervision, and even military affairs with the audiencia;
the support of that body was even more necessary in dealing with the
powerful ecclesiastical organization.
The authority which the audiencia exercised jointly with the royal
vicepatron was based upon the law ordering
our viceroys, presidents, oidores and governors of the Indies
to see, guard, and fulfill (the laws), and in the provinces,
towns, and churches (in the Indies) to see that all laws and
pre-eminences which pertain to our royal patronage are guarded
and fulfilled, ... which they will do by the best means that may
appear to them convenient, giving all the orders and instructions
necessary to the end that all (the instructions) that we may give
shall be carried out in due form; and we pray and charge [692]
our bishops and archbishops, deans, and ecclesiastical chapters of
the metropolitan and cathedral churches and cathedrals and all the
curates and occupants of benefices, clerics, sacristans and other
ecclesiastical persons, and the provincials, guardians, priors
and other religious of the orders, in so far as it is incumbent
upon them, to guard and fulfill them (the laws and preëminences
of the king) and see them fulfilled and obeyed, conforming with
our viceroys, presidents, audiencias and governors as much as
may be appropriate and necessary. [693]
In accordance with this law the audiencia exercised the right of
intervention in practically all matters to which the authority of
the vicepatron extended. Foremost among these were the supervision
and administration of ecclesiastical revenues, the administration
of vacant benefices, the extension of missionary influences and the
construction of churches and monasteries. The audiencia, moreover,
had authority over the reception and installation of prelates,
parish priests, and regulars, and their removal for cause. In all
these matters the audiencia was responsible directly to the king and
made reports thereon; in fact, it may be said that the tribunal,
in co-ordination with the vicepatron, served as a connecting link
between the church in the Islands and the royal council in Spain.
An analysis of the relations between the audiencia and the church
will show that the tribunal exercised two kinds of ecclesiastical
powers. These may be regarded respectively as executive and
judicial. Although it was in their union that the audiencia exercised
its most extensive and far-reaching power of ecclesiastical control,
it is advisable for several reasons that these powers should be
considered as distinct from one another. They will therefore be
discussed separately in this treatise. In this chapter we shall
consider only the first of these powers--the one which was most
directly concerned with the maintenance of the royal patronage--namely,
the authority which the audiencia exercised co-ordinately with the
governor in the supervision and control of the church in the colony.
Although there appears to have been no conflict of authority between
the governor and the audiencia over their mutual relations under the
laws of the royal patronage, it is advisable at the outset to settle
one difficulty which may present itself in this connection. Many of
these powers which the audiencia exercised were conferred upon the
vicepatron exclusively. Indeed, a study of the laws alone would suggest
the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction between the governor and
the audiencia in matters relating to the royal patronage. In actual
practice, however, the governor shared the powers of ecclesiastical
supervision with the audiencia, and their relations were harmonious
in all matters appertaining thereto. Indeed, there is record of fewer
conflicts between the audiencia and the governor in this field of
activity than in any other.
It would seem that the intervention of the audiencia in ecclesiastical
matters developed in the same manner and for the same reason as
it came to have authority in matters of government, finance and
military administration. The manifest impossibility of the successful
administration of the many affairs of civil and ecclesiastical
government by the governor (or viceroy in New Spain and Perú)
made inevitable the division of power, which, though real, was not
always formally recognized by the laws. The audiencia was the only
body available with which the governor (or viceroy) might share these
responsibilities. Its judicial character, and the talent, training, and
administrative ability and experience (wider than that of the governor
himself) of its members made it the logical institution to which
the executive should naturally turn for advice and assistance. Not
only did he require counsel, but the moral and physical support of a
tribunal of weight and authority was invaluable in dealing with the
united forces of a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is the
best possible explanation of that gradual assumption of authority by
the audiencia which seems to have been so indefinitely, yet freely
conceded, and which apparently grew up neither in conflict with the
law nor yet entirely in accord with it, but which, now recognized,
and now ignored, was never denied or prohibited.
The cédula of October 6, 1578, in explanation of the various forms of
address in the expedition of royal cédulas, was designed to make clear
the respective jurisdictions of the vicepatron and the audiencia
in ecclesiastical as well as in other governmental affairs. It
ordered that
when our royal cédulas refer in particular to the viceroys, they
alone shall attend to their fulfillment without other intervention;
if they designate the viceroy, or president or audiencia, they
shall all attend to their execution in accordance with the opinion
of the greater part of them that are in the audiencia, and the
viceroy or president shall not have more than one vote like the
rest that may be present, provided that this do not contravene
the superior government which we regularly commit to our viceroys
and presidents. [694]
While more than a joint authority with the vicepatron cannot be claimed
for the audiencia, and that authority not necessarily coequal, this
cédula established beyond question the royal intention of recognizing
the audiencia as a support and an aid to the governor. This law
applied to all the affairs of government, not pertaining any more
extensively to the ecclesiastical than to the administrative sphere,
but this cédula, together with what actually happened, may be taken
as evidence that the audiencia was meant to have jurisdiction in
ecclesiastical affairs when royal cédulas granting or assuming the
exercise of such jurisdiction were addressed to it.
The right of the officials of the civil government to interfere
in questions of patronage was seldom seriously questioned by the
churchmen, although there were some notable instances in which
religious authorities objected to this exercise of power. Bishop
Salazar, in his opposition to the plan of Fray Alonso Sánchez
at the court of Madrid (1593-1595), expressed his disapproval
of the interference of the governor and audiencia in questions of
patronage. His opposition is further attested by several of his letters
and declarations enunciated previous to that time. [695] He admitted
that the civil government, by virtue of the bulls of Alexander VI and
Julius II, should act as the defender and champion of the church, but
he opposed any further participation in ecclesiastical affairs by the
civil power. Salazar's arguments are worth noting because they were
advanced during the formative period of the Islands' history. It was
during his prelacy that the basis of all future relations of church and
state was established. The arguments of Bishop Salazar were repeated
with little variation by Archbishop Poblete in his controversy with
Governor Salcedo in 1665 and later by Archbishop Pardo in 1686. [696]
In considering this question, the calm and impartial judgment of
a scholar is eminently preferable to the passionate arguments of
a prelate deeply concerned in the outcome of the dispute. Let us
turn from the field of original research to a modern Spanish writer
on church history and law. Fray Matias Gómez Zamora, writing from
the vantage ground of the modern day, characterizes the acts of the
government officials of the earlier era as excessive and unjustified by
papal bull or ecclesiastical canon. He even goes a step farther when he
declares that "many royal decrees and cédulas were wrongfully issued,
without proper basis." He cites examples to prove his contention and
among these he points to the foundation of churches and monasteries by
civil authorities without the confirmation of the prelate, alleging
that such practices were entirely illegal. [697] In like manner,
he criticises the cédulas of October 19, 1756, and of June 24, 1762,
which bestowed upon the governor jurisdiction as vicepatron, [698]
with the right of settling whatever questions might arise. "But,"
he writes, "it is clear that the viceroys, the audiencias and the
governors did not have, nor could they have spiritual jurisdiction
over the persons or property of the ecclesiastics, because in no
case can power which is delegated be greater than he to whom it is
delegated." [699] Thus does this distinguished writer attack the
foundation of the entire institution whereby Spain controlled the
church in her colonies during a period of three hundred years.
Notwithstanding the fact that the governor was the civil head
of the church in the colony, it would be possible to fill this
chapter completely with quotations of laws which were addressed
to the audiencia in recognition of its right of intervention
in ecclesiastical matters. The necessity of reserving space for
specific cases illustrative of history and practice permits only a
scanty summary of the most important of these laws. In practically
all these cases the audiencia participated conjointly with the
vicepatron. The interposition of the audiencia was authorized in
the calling of provincial councils and synods, and the resolutions
of these bodies had to be examined by the viceroys, presidents,
and oidores to see that they were in accordance with the laws of
the royal patronage. [700] The audiencia was empowered to examine
all papal bulls and briefs and to suspend those which had not been
properly authorized by the Council of the Indies. Disputes between
prelates and arguments of churchmen based on bulls and briefs were
to be referred by the audiencia to the Council of the Indies. The
audiencia was authorized to enforce all properly authorized bulls
and briefs and to exercise care that the ecclesiastical courts were
granted their proper jurisdiction in accordance with canon law. [701]
The audiencia was authorized to enforce the law which forbade laymen
to trade with priests. Punishment in the latter case was not meted
out by that tribunal, but the offending churchmen were handed over
to the prelates. [702] The audiencia, viceroy, and governors were
commanded to exercise supervision over the prelates and provincials,
receiving from the latter annual reports on the state, membership, and
progress of the religious orders and the work performed by them, which
information in turn was forwarded to the Council of the Indies. [703]
All possible assistance was to be furnished by the audiencia and
governor to missionaries remaining in the Philippines or going to
Japan. [704] The governor and audiencia were ordered to supervise
closely the work of ecclesiastical visitors in the provinces,
exercising special care that the natives were not imposed on or
abused. The oidores were prohibited from interference with the internal
government of the religious orders. [705] Members of orders could not
usually be removed by their provincials without the consent of the
vicepatron and the audiencia, the authority of the latter extending to
the removal and exile of offending priests. [706] The audiencia was
ordered to make every possible effort to preserve harmony among the
religious and to adjust all differences arising between the orders,
or within them. [707] The tribunal was authorized to keep prelates
from exceeding their authority in passing judgment on erring priests,
especially to see that no punishments were imposed such as would
interfere with the prerogatives of the civil government. [708]
The following brief summary of laws of the early period, although
possibly repeating data already given, shows the extent of the
participation of the audiencia in the regulation of ecclesiastical
affairs: [709]
All ecclesiastics holding office were first to gain the recognition
of the viceroy, president, audiencia or whatever authority might
be in charge of the province.
A list of the members of each order was to be furnished by their
provincial to the governing authority. Any changes subsequently
made in the membership of the orders had to be reported in the
same way.
The names of all religious teachers were to be submitted to the
audiencia, governor or other authority in control, for inspection
and approval.
The audiencia was instructed to inform itself relative to the
efficiency of the clergy and of religious teachers working
among the Indians, and to see that those lacking in educational
qualifications or in general capacity were not permitted to enter
the Islands. [710]
Notices of removals or of new appointments made among the
clergy were to be sent to the governor, audiencia, and to the
bishop. [711]
The jurisdiction of the audiencia under the royal patronage extended
to practically all classes of churchmen and church affairs. [712] By
the cédulas of August 4, 1574, and of October 25, 1667, the audiencia
acquired the right of passing on the credentials of prelates who came
to the Islands. That tribunal was entrusted with the duty of seeing
that bishops and archbishops carried with them the duly attested
confirmation of the Council of the Indies, and no prelate was allowed
to leave the Islands unless he had the permission of the governor or
audiencia. [713] The tribunal exercised a check on the governor in this
particular and saw to it that in granting this permission he did not
show favoritism or otherwise violate the laws of the royal patronage.
Two striking illustrations of the audiencia's jurisdiction over the
inspection of the credentials of the prelates and higher churchmen
occur in the history of the Philippines. In 1674, Francisco de Palóu,
a French bishop who had been engaged in missionary work in China,
was cast upon the shores of the Philippines. The audiencia immediately
dispatched orders for his detention, and he was not permitted to return
to his district on the ground that his presence and jurisdiction in
China constituted an encroachment on the rights of Spain. China had
been conceded to Spain by Alexander VI, and by virtue of the royal
patronage, the right of making ecclesiastical appointments and the
exercise of jurisdiction there were prerogatives belonging to the
Spanish crown. [714]
A similar case occurred in 1704, when Archbishop Tourón, a French
delegate destined for China, arrived in Manila. He was received by
the governor and audiencia, as he bore a legally executed commission
from the pope for the visitation of all the churches in the Orient,
and for the settlement of all ecclesiastical controversies which had
arisen there. The royal acuerdo considered that the dispatches and
credentials which he carried were in accordance with the law. Tourón
was accordingly permitted to set up an ecclesiastical court. He
suspended Archbishop Camacho from his office and freed from prison
some of the worst criminals in the Islands. He ordered the regulars
to submit to diocesan visitation; but they refused to obey him since
they had already rejected the efforts of the archbishop to enforce
the principle. The Council of the Indies ultimately disapproved of
the admission of this foreign ecclesiastic without the authorization
of the Spanish government [715] and as a consequence ordered the
removal of the governor and senior oidor, heavily fined the remaining
magistrates and reduced Archbishop Camacho to the position of Bishop
of Guadalajara. [716]
In its joint capacity as assistant to the vicepatron and as a high
court with jurisdiction over ecclesiastical cases, the audiencia
settled disputes between rival claimants to positions of authority
in the church, particularly to the position of archbishop. The law
which had been in force up to 1619 prescribed that the ecclesiastical
chapter should fill the vacancy with a temporary incumbent, but some
effort had already been made to have the senior bishop succeed to the
post. Bishop Arce of Cebú was opposed to this plan on the ground that
each prelate had more than he could do in the proper administration
of his own bishopric. [717] Nevertheless it may be noted that on
January 22, 1630, Arce was made acting archbishop of the metropolitan
see of Manila by virtue of the acuerdo of the audiencia and the
vicepatron. [718] Arce's accession to the post was in accordance with
a papal bull which had been promulgated with the king's approval at
some date between 1619 and 1630. There had been a three-cornered
fight between the ecclesiastical chapter, the Bishop of Cebú, and
the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, and this conflict had been settled
by the acuerdo in favor of Arce, while the chapter appealed to the
Council of the Indies. When Guerrero, the new appointee, arrived, he
immediately laid claim to the office, which Arce refused to surrender
on account of an irregularity in the archbishop's appointment. Arce
appealed to the audiencia, but the tribunal refused to authorize
any innovations. [719] In a statement to the king, dated October 17,
1655, he related that in 1629 the governor and audiencia had solicited
that he come to Manila and take the place vacated through the death
of Archbishop Serrano. This would seem to indicate that the audiencia
had acted solely on the basis of its authority derived from the royal
patronage, but in settling the dispute among the various ecclesiastical
authorities it also acted judicially. Guerrero's credentials finally
came, apparently executed in the proper form and they were referred
to the audiencia by the governor. The tribunal, when it had satisfied
itself that the commission was valid, placed thereon the stamp of
its approval and accepted Guerrero as archbishop. Then the latter,
in the words of Governor Corcuera, presented himself "in the royal
court of justice (the audiencia) before which he appeared to be
presented [to his see], he swore upon the gospels not to interfere
with your Majesty's jurisdiction, to respect your royal patronage,
and to be always your royal vassal." [720] In other words, he took
his oath of office as archbishop in the audiencia.
The above may be considered as a typical case of the temporary
designation of a prelate for the archbishopric of Manila by the
audiencia. To cite further instances of a similar nature would be
unnecessary. The tribunal continued to inspect the credentials of
bishops and archbishops before they were admitted to their posts
throughout the history of the Islands. This practice was followed
even during the period from 1660 to 1762 when the church counted
for more as a political institution than either the audiencia or the
governor. [721]
The audiencia exercised intervention in the removal of curates from
their parishes. [722] As noted, already, these removals were made by
the vicepatron upon the recommendation of the prelate concerned. Of
course, when the audiencia was governing ad interim it made these
removals itself. It also intervened when the vicepatron was present
on occasions when he requested the support of the tribunal or failed
to act himself. The judicial authority of the audiencia, exercised
through its entertainment of appeals from curates who had been removed,
will be considered in the next chapter.
A great many reasons for removals were purely ecclesiastical, such
as questions of the private lives and conduct of priests and friars
and their insubordination and non-compliance with ecclesiastical
or monastic rules. With these matters the audiencia did not concern
itself unless deportation was involved, or the offenses of the priests
constituted crimes against the civil government. There is record of
many removals from curacies because of infractions of the marriage
laws by priests, such, for instance, as uniting heathen Chinese with
Christian women, which was a violation of the pragmatic law of March
23, 1776. Such cases, and indeed all which had to do with removals
from curacies after 1795, were settled by ecclesiastical tribunals
with appeal to the papal delegate, without the intervention of the
audiencia. [723]
The operation of the removal of regulars for cause was slightly
different. Unless the regular was the holder of a parish and subject
to episcopal visitation, the prelate had no jurisdiction over him,
and neither the governor nor the audiencia could interfere in the
matter, unless such intervention was requested by the provincial. [724]
When the deportation of regulars not holding curacies was decreed,
the consent of the vicepatron or audiencia, acting for him, was
necessary. This was usually given on the recommendation of the
provincial, and the exile accordingly became an act of the civil
government. The formal consent of the Council of the Indies was
necessary for all deportations of this character, but the complete
exercise of this prerogative gradually devolved upon the vicepatron,
who notified the Council of the act. [725]
The crimes of priests or ecclesiastics against the law and order of
the realm were punishable in the same manner and by the same agency
as the simpler violations of ordinary subjects. Attention has already
been given in another part of this treatise to a case in which the
audiencia, in 1617, tried and punished six Augustinian friars who had
been convicted of murder. [726] Their guilt was first ascertained by
a preliminary investigation within the order, after which they were
handed over to the audiencia.
The statement has been made above that the audiencia was not allowed to
interfere in the internal régime of the convents or monasteries. [727]
However, when the provincials of the orders were unable to keep
the friars in subordination they frequently called upon the civil
government for support and assistance. This was done in 1715 when the
Castilian Recollects rebelled against their provincial, incorporated
themselves into a separate chapter, and entrenched themselves in
the convent at Bagumbayan, outside the Manila wall. Oidor Torralba,
then acting as governor and vicepatron, came to the support of the
provincial upon appeal. He cannonaded the recalcitrants, arresting
and imprisoning them on their surrender, and finally banished their
leaders. [728] On this same occasion, it may be noted, the provincial
solicited the aid of the archbishop, whose interference the rebellious
friars had resisted as an attempt at episcopal visitation.
The disciplinary jurisdiction over priests and friars referred to
above suggests a similar authority which the audiencia exercised over
the prelates. Within the period of one year after the installation of
Archbishop Guerrero at Manila in 1636, the governor, with the support
of the audiencia, had banished this same prelate and his ecclesiastical
provisor, [729] condemning the former to pay a fine of 2000 ducats. The
governor contrived also to influence the judge-conservator [730]
to pronounce a ban of excommunication upon them both, in return
for a like censure that had already been passed on the governor by
the prelate. [731] The banishment of Archbishop Poblete by Governor
Salcedo and the audiencia prior to the arrest of that governor by
the commissary of the Inquisition, the exile of Archbishop Pardo in
1684, and the imprisonment of Archbishop de la Cuesta by Governor
Bustamante and the audiencia in 1719, are incidents in the history
of the Islands which serve well as illustrations of the disciplinary
and coercive jurisdiction of the vicepatron and audiencia over the
churchmen. These events need only be referred to here, as they have
already been discussed in relation to other phases of the history of
the audiencia.
As visitors of the provinces, the oidores were required to inspect
the ecclesiastical work of the parish priests and to note their care
and treatment of the Indians. [732] In the exercise of these duties
they were protected by a law which forbade prelates to proceed against
them with censures while they were carrying on such investigations. Le
Gentil, the noted French traveller, who visited the Islands during
the middle of the eighteenth century, testified that the oidores
did not fulfill their duty with great faithfulness. Le Gentil stated
that on account of their dependence on the hospitality of the priests
when travelling from place to place in the provinces, the visitors'
inspections were merely perfunctory and of little value. [733]
The above testimony is not corroborated, however, by the report of
Oidor Francisco Guerela who was sent to Camarines in 1702 to take
account of tribute and to inquire into the state of the encomiendas. He
reported that in the curacies which were administered by the
Franciscans there was an entire absence of religious instruction,
the natives were mistreated, and they were permitted to continue in
idolatry, drunkenness, and superstition. Neither the priests nor the
alcaldes mayores exerted any uplifting or civilizing influence. The
alcaldes mayores, it was alleged, connived with the priests to
defraud the natives by the imposition of excessive tribute and by the
exaction of all sorts of fraudulent ecclesiastical tithes. The oidor
in this case sought to remedy this state of affairs by dispatching
reformatory edicts against the friars, and by posting notices and
copies of royal decrees and cédulas designed to inform the natives
of their rights under the law and to warn them against the imposture
of the friars. Whereupon the Franciscans appealed to the Bishop of
Camarines and persuaded him to excommunicate the oidor on the grounds
that he had usurped the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This appeal to
the papal delegate was in direct violation of the cédula mentioned
above, protecting such visitations against ecclesiastical censure. The
oidor appealed to the audiencia and that body solicited the prelate
by ruego y encargo to remove his censures. The audiencia would go no
further, however, as two of the magistrates were personally hostile
to Guerela, hence the oidor was obliged to remain in the provinces at
the mercy of the friars. After six months of isolation, Guerela, who
was broken in health, sent an appeal for aid to the king on June 20,
1702. This memorial embodied a full account of his attempts to make
necessary reforms in the provinces subject to his visitation. [734] It
was presented to the Council of the Indies on October 14, 1706. [735]
Three observations might be made from this incident. First, there was
little vigor, promptitude, or effectiveness in the Spanish judicial
system as therein exemplified. It took four years for this petition to
be presented to the Council and considerably more time for an answer
to be made. Secondly, this affair shows to what extent petty spite
and private quarrels interfered with good government and efficient
administration. Thirdly, it illustrates the fact that the entire
civil government, including the audiencia, was very much under the
domination and influence of the ecclesiastics.
An inspection which was similar to that just described was made
by Oidor José Torralba, in 1713, in the provinces of Albay and
Cebú. Torralba was unable to complete his work, owing to his recall
to Manila, where he was obliged to resume his place in the audiencia
on account of the insufficient number of magistrates present in the
tribunal. It seems that in the provinces subject to his visitation,
the former charges of the Franciscans had been turned over to the
seculars, most of whom were natives. Torralba reported that under
the careless and incompetent administration of the parish priests,
the churches had gone to ruin and all Indian instruction had been
abandoned. In his report he commented unfavorably on the stupidity and
immorality of the native clergy, alleging that in them lay one of the
causes of the poverty and degradation of the people. He recommended
the restoration of the regulars. [736] Torralba's recommendations
were not followed. Either because of his hurried departure from
the provinces where he left his work unfinished, or because of the
disinclination or lack of authority of the audiencia and vicepatron,
no definite steps were taken at this time for the amelioration of
the condition of the people or for the reform of the clergy.
That the interests of the friars were vigorously and effectively
championed at the court is evidenced by the royal decree of June
14, 1714, which was dispatched not alone to the Philippines, but
which was made general in Perú and New Spain. [737] It forbade the
governors and audiencias using their authority as vicepatrons to
justify their interference with the interior administration of the
convents and monasteries of the orders, which it was complained they
were doing without authorization. This decree particularly emphasized
the principle which has already been set forth in this treatise that
the vicepatrons and audiencias should not concern themselves with
the discipline and punishment of friars not holding curacies. The
promulgation of this decree was brought about as a result of the
efforts of the commissary of the Franciscan order in Madrid.
Not only were the oidores required to inspect the work of the parish
priests, but the audiencia, in the exercise of the royal patronage,
was authorized to receive, assist, and supervise the ecclesiastical
visitors who came from Spain or Mexico, or were designated from the
ranks of the local clergy to inspect the orders. [738] These visitors
were also authorized to inspect friars who were in charge of parishes,
[739] and when on these tours of inspection they might be accompanied
by the prelate in charge of the curacies retained by the friars
under inspection. The audiencia was to co-operate in all possible
ways with these visitors, and should any question arise between them
and a prelate over jurisdiction, the tribunal was to do everything
possible to bring about a harmonious adjustment of the points of
difference. This is illustrated by a case which arose in 1776, when
Fray Joseph Pereyra was given a royal commission to make a general
investigation of the Augustinian order in the Philippines. Fiscal
Andrade of the audiencia demanded that Pereyra should submit all
his documents for inspection on the basis of the royal patronage
and other laws, [740] but the audiencia, under the presidency of
Governor Anda, refused to support the fiscal. The king, on April 6,
1778, rebuked the audiencia for its failure to support the royal
patronage, citing two cédulas, those of July 2 and of October 14,
1773, respectively, in which he had already admonished the vicepatron
in that particular. [741] The failure of the audiencia and governor
to exercise all their prerogatives in support of the royal patronage
on these various occasions can probably be attributed to dissensions
within the tribunal and to the corrupting influence of the church.
The statement has frequently been made in this treatise that the
audiencia served as a connecting link between the court and the
colony. It constituted a channel through which a large amount
of correspondence was carried on, and one of the duties most
frequently required was that of furnishing special and regular
reports and informaciones [742] on various subjects connected with the
church. [743] Notwithstanding the vast number of ecclesiastics present
in the colony, who could and did make special and regular reports,
and were indeed required to make them, the audiencia was frequently
called upon to render reports on precisely the same subjects as those
covered by the churchmen. In this way points of view other than
the ecclesiastical were obtained. Thus the advice of magistrates,
lawyers and men in active touch with the government served to temper
ecclesiastical opinion in the same way that the advice of prelates
exercised an influence on matters purely governmental. Taking into
consideration their position in the colony, the oidores were better
qualified to obtain and impart information concerning the church than
most authorities.
To indicate the vast field of special subjects in which the oidores
were required to report, various instances may be mentioned. On July
1, 1598, the king desired information concerning the alleged need of a
greater amount of space on the galleon for the support of the bishopric
of Nueva Segovia. The archbishop and the bishop of that diocese had
both recommended that more cargo-space be given to the church. The
king desired to know whether, in the opinion of the oidores, the
privilege of shipping two hundred tons would be sufficient for the
needs of the bishopric in question. [744] Again, on December 7, 1610,
the audiencia was called upon to forward to the Council of the Indies
evidence bearing upon a dispute between the natives of Quiapo and the
Jesuits over lands claimed by the latter society. [745] On another
occasion the king requested of the audiencia a report concerning the
work, deserts, and financial condition of the convent of Santa Clara,
which had asked for royal aid. [746] Frequently the audiencia was
called upon to take a census of the number of priests, secular and
regular, in the Islands and to report on the size of each order, the
number of friars holding secular curacies in each, and the number of
missionaries. [747] It came to be its regular duty to furnish these
reports at stated intervals, and when, for some reason, it failed
to render them, a royal reprimand was forthcoming. A yearly report
was also made on the number of friars entering the Islands, how many
had gone to China, the number of souls ministered to by each order,
how large was each province, and how many people there were in each
curacy. [748]
It is interesting to know that the churchmen were also held responsible
for this information and that reports on these same subjects were
required of the prelates and provincials. [749] It is evident that
the report of the audiencia was utilized as a check to prevent
misrepresentation on the part of the friars, especially since it was
always the object of each order to prove that it was over-worked and
in urgent need of more members. As friars were sent to the Islands
at the royal expense, [750] and as they were supported after their
arrival by the royal treasury, the exercise of economy was always
desirable. On the other hand, it was to the interest of an order to
make its requirements and accomplishments appear as great as possible.
Another function which the audiencia came to exercise by virtue of
its authority in behalf of the royal patronage was that of general
supervision over the colleges and universities. In the laws of
the Indies this duty was imposed upon the viceroys and governors,
[751] and nothing was said of the authority of the audiencia in
that particular. According to the laws of the Indies, in fact,
the audiencia had little jurisdiction or authority over colleges,
universities and seminaries, but as the administration of these was
entirely in the hands of the church, the audiencia came to exercise
much the same authority over education that it did over other
church activities. [752] Oidores and fiscales were forbidden to act
as rectors, but they might participate in the law examinations to
satisfy themselves whether the standard of instruction in the royal
universities and colleges was sufficiently high, and whether the
education, training and ability of candidates for the licentiate's
degree gave evidence of their fitness. [753] According to the royal
decree of November 27, 1623, the University of Santo Tomás was founded
in the Philippines with the advice of the governor and acuerdo of
the audiencia. [754] Here again that tribunal may be seen in the act
of assuming non-judicial functions which primarily belonged to the
governor through the unwillingness or inability of that official to
act alone.
The audiencia early exercised advisory powers in educational
affairs. The Jesuits as early as 1585 had requested permission to
found and establish a college or seminary in Manila, and the king,
on January 11, 1587, requested of the audiencia a report on the
general conduct, progress and accomplishments of the Jesuit order,
asking in particular what benefit would accrue from the establishment
of a Jesuit college in Manila. The audiencia, in its report of June
25, 1588, characterized their work as very effective, the learning
and ability of their personnel remarkable, but in the opinion of the
oidores there was scarcely any need of a college in Manila at that
time, and there were no means of supporting one. [755]
When Santo Tomás became a royal university in 1648, the Jesuits were
obliged to sue in the audiencia for the right to continue the bestowal
of academic degrees. Their request was denied by the tribunal, but
the decision was reversed by the Council of the Indies in 1653. [756]
On May 3, 1722, San José was made a royal college and was subjected
to the visitation and patronage of the audiencia. In 1769, when the
Jesuits were suppressed, an attempt was made to continue San José as
a secular institution under the supervision of the audiencia. This
brought forth such determined opposition from the Dominicans and
from the friends and supporters of Santo Tomás that on June 30,
1778, a cédula was issued ordering the audiencia to close San José
and hand over all students in attendance there to the archbishop, so
that they might be placed in secular colleges and seminaries. [757]
This was done, and the audiencia rendered to the Council of the
Indies a report on the administration of the finances pertaining
to the transaction. The revenues derived from all unsold properties
belonging to the Jesuits were included in the temporalities, and the
income from these were transmitted to the royal treasury. Subsequently
the archbishop attempted to assume jurisdiction over these Jesuit
properties and funds, and to this the audiencia objected. In 1784
the matter was finally settled by the decree of the king in answer
to an appeal which had been carried by the prelate from the audiencia
to the Council of the Indies. He sustained the audiencia and forbade
the prelate from interfering with these temporalities.
The Dominicans were more successful in the maintenance of an
educational institution. [758] On the occasion of the extension of
the charter of the University of Santo Tomás on May 17, 1680, the
king ordered "my president and the auditors of my Audiencia of that
city, and request and charge the archbishop of the city, the bishops
of the said islands, the ecclesiastical and secular cabildos, the
superiors of the orders, and any other of my judges and justices,"
... to acknowledge the University of Santo Tomás as a beneficiary of
the royal patronage. Its title was formally extended on June 21, 1681,
by act of the audiencia. [759] The tribunal not only exercised the
right of patronage over the Dominican university, but also over the
College of San Juan de Letrán, a seminary for boys which was founded
in 1640 and maintained by the Dominicans as an adjunct to Santo Tomás.
Reports, recommendations, and informaciones exist in abundance to
prove that the audiencia exercised considerable influence in the life
and history of these institutions. The tribunal celebrated acuerdos to
improve the instruction in mathematics, physics, law and medicine. It
provided for the examination of students, passed on their credentials,
made regulations for the bestowal of degrees and decided upon the
fitness of prospective teachers. [760] It supervised the records
of these institutions, audited their finances and sent reports to
the king and Council concerning the work of the universities and
colleges. In its jurisdiction and authority over these educational
institutions the audiencia served in behalf of the sovereign as his
royal tribunal. These were royal universities, endowed with special
royal charters and privileges and it was fitting that they should
be controlled by the royal audiencia in the king's name. In addition
to this, as they were administered by the church, the audiencia and
the vicepatron exercised joint control over them, in the name of
the royal patronage in the same manner that they supervised other
ecclesiastical activities.
As we have already noted, the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over
matters of church finance. The most notable examples of its control
may be seen in the administration of tithes, [761] the funds of
temporalities, obras pias, funds of the Crusade, and espolios of
the prelates.
The audiencia was authorized to guard the royal interest in the matter
of the collection and the administration of tithes, particularly with
a view to seeing that over-ambitious churchmen did not obtain more
than their share, and that in the collection of the tithes they did
not oppress the natives. The special care of the oidores was to see
that tithes be not paid directly to the prelates. [762] In fact,
these funds were to be administered by the civil government, and
prelates were not to be allowed to interfere with their collection. No
changes were to be made in the authorized manner of collecting these
funds on the responsibility of colonial officials. Recommendations
for reform should be made to the Council of the Indies either by
the prelate or by the audiencia. [763] The audiencia was ordered to
see that the proper division and distribution of tithes were made,
and that the two-ninths of the gross sum collected was duly set aside
for the crown, in accordance with the law. [764]
Further evidence that the audiencia was regarded as the instrument
of the royal will in these matters is afforded by the circumstances
leading up to the reforms of 1768 and 1786; and it should be noted
particularly that the king and Council relied on that tribunal
for advice and assistance in the drafting and execution of these
measures. A number of tentative laws and proposals for changes in the
system of collection and administration of the tithes was sent to the
audiencia, from time to time, prior to 1768, and the magistrates were
required to submit opinions as to the availability and applicability
of the proposed measures. In 1768 a decree was issued fixing the
tithe at ten reales per Indian. Previous to that year a number of
religious orders owning large tracts of agricultural land had refused
to pay these taxes, and the audiencia, by virtue of the royal order
of September 25, 1768, was ordered to enforce the law, which it did,
even proceeding to the seizure of the chattels of the recalcitrant
friars. [765] On December 11, 1775, the audiencia passed an ordinance
diminishing the tithes to be paid by natives, mestizos, Chinese
and Japanese by one-half real per person. [766] On July 12, 1778,
the king asked the audiencia to submit evidence on the question of
whether the law worked any hardship on the inhabitants of the colony,
and whether encomenderos and friars were paying their share. [767]
At the same time, and on the same date, the royal approval was given
to the auto which the audiencia had enacted on December 11, 1775. The
recommendations of the audiencia were also largely followed in the
decree of January 20, 1786, which was merely a repromulgation of an
earlier auto of the audiencia, which ordered that tithes should not
be collected directly from the Indians unless the latter were owners
of lands. Otherwise they were to be collected from the landlords. [768]
By subsequent laws the audiencia was temporarily deprived of
its jurisdiction over tithes. When the Philippine government was
reorganized in 1787 by the Ordinance of Intendants, many of the special
commissions which had been previously retained by the magistrates were
ceded to the superintendent of real hacienda. The actual collection
of tithes was made the duty of the superintendent by cédula of October
6, 1792, [769] but because of its relation to the royal patronage the
audiencia, in practice, found it convenient to retain control. Governor
Aguilar, who was also superintendent of real hacienda, wrote to the
king on July 31, 1799, [770] alleging that there was no reason why
the audiencia should exercise this authority, when, by virtue of its
financial nature, this duty belonged to the superintendent. He stated
that the audiencia had been given this jurisdiction when there had been
no other authority for the collection of tithes, but that as it was
not a controversial matter, there was no reason for the continuance
of this condition. In the letter referred to Aguilar stated that he
had attempted to put his interpretation of the law into execution,
but in so doing had been opposed by the audiencia. The answer to this
appeal does not appear in connection with the original, but the royal
cédula of April 21, 1803, restored to the audiencia jurisdiction over
the collection of tithes. [771]
It may be said, however, that with the creation of the superintendency
the audiencia was shorn of many of the miscellaneous functions with
which it had been formerly endowed. The funds of the temporalities,
however, did not come under this category. They were greatly augmented
in 1767 when the Jesuits were suppressed, and as was usual with such
miscellaneous and unclassified duties, as well as on account of the
audiencia's relation to the royal patronage, the administration of
these funds came under the charge of an oidor whose official title was
"administrator of the funds of the temporalities." [772]
Nevertheless, the audiencia's share of direct control over these
funds was still considerable. On January 23, 1803, a cédula was issued
ordering that the money of the temporalities and obras pias should be
put at the disposal of the acuerdo of the audiencia. [773] A report
was submitted to that tribunal by Superintendent Aguilar on July 20,
1804, in accordance with this cédula. The report of Aguilar showed
a balance on hand of 151,625 pesos waiting to be sent to Spain
by the first transportation. In 1809, the jurisdiction of these
funds was completely restored to the audiencia, with the provision
that the oidores who acted as their administrators should receive a
three per cent commission. As the funds were constantly drawn upon,
and there were no further confiscations of property of this sort,
they can be accounted as of little importance, yielding practically
no revenue from that date. Owing to the continual appeals of the
government for money with which to defray the expenses of putting
down the various insurrections from 1808 to 1814 and subsequently,
the funds of the temporalities, like every other peso that came into
the treasuries of the colonies, were sent to Spain as rapidly as they
were collected. [774]
The audiencia also audited the accounts of the obras pías, though
its jurisdiction over these funds was often opposed. [775] The chief
foundations of the obras pías in Manila were the Santa Misericordia
and San Juan de Diós. The wealth and power of the Misericordia became
so great, [776] and so well did it profit by the various immunities
extended to it, that by the early part of the eighteenth century
it had become the object of the distrust and envy of all classes of
Manila society. It was chiefly disliked because it had been permitted
to utilize so much free space on the galleon. Other inconveniences
had arisen from its participation in trade, wherein, possessed of so
many advantages, it was enabled to derive profits and benefits that
were denied to competing merchants in the colony. Complaints were made
against it by certain religious orders, merchants, treasury officials,
oidores, and the governor, himself. It was the consensus of opinion
among these that the accounts of this society should be inspected
by the government, and, in accordance with these recommendations,
a cédula was expedited, ordering the society to submit its accounts
to the audiencia for inspection and approval. [777]
The suspicions of the general public were confirmed, and the popular
distrust increased when the inspection of Oidor Calderón revealed
that the finances of the society had been carelessly kept, and that
the books contained numerous discrepancies. The scrutiny of the
oidor showed the existence of a deficit of 383,437 pesos; that is,
the records called for property in the hands of the society to the
value of that sum which could not be found. The Misericordia, in a
series of protests, accounted for the discrepancies by alleging that
the audiencia had declared many of its debtors bankrupt. Relief from
the inspection was requested on the grounds that the local feeling
and the prejudice of the oidores would cause them to be unfair to the
society. It pleaded that the inspection should be made by the chief
accountant of the Council of the Indies (contador de cuentas) once
in five years. In this request it was supported by the recommendation
of this official. [778]
On April 19, 1755, the cédula of November 9, 1747, was modified on
the basis of these protests, and in lieu of the annual inspection of
the oidor was substituted the requirement that once in three years the
Misericordia should submit its own accounts. [779] This brought forth
a storm of protest from the residents of Manila, headed by Governor
Arandía, who went to some length to describe the abuses which had
arisen in the past from the unrestricted liberty which the Misericordia
had enjoyed. He accused the society of dishonest political practices,
interference with the government, bribery and corruption. He said that
behind its commercial operations there existed a veiled scheme by which
the church was seeking to monopolize the trade of the Islands. [780]
The opposition of the governor and residents bore fruit to the extent
that a compromise was made in the royal cédula of February 21, 1759,
which restored the practice of having oidores inspect the accounts of
the Misericordia, though the examination was to be held only once in
five years. This, of course, was sufficiently lenient to defeat the
entire scheme. Oidores were forbidden to interfere with the property
of the society at any other time and in any other manner. [781]
The Misericordia maintained a stubborn and vigorous resistance to
the principle of visitation by the audiencia, but as far as may be
judged by the data at hand, the law was not changed again, and the
audiencia continued to exercise supervision. That the audiencia was
prone to overstep its authority in the matter of these inspections
is shown by an incident which occurred in 1776-1777. In the regular
quinquennial inspection of the records of the Misericordia a number
of abuses were uncovered. The funds were found to have been carelessly
administered, and the books inaccurately kept, owing to the negligence,
incapacity, and corruption of the members to whom the funds had been
entrusted. Governor Sarrio, as vicepatron, appointed Oidor Calderón
as receiver and administrator of the funds, with the charge that the
oidor should suspend all payments until the accounts were straightened
out. The Misericordia protested and on April 25, 1778, the king ordered
the governor and audiencia to desist from further interference with
the funds of the society, the royal disapproval being based on the
cédula of February 21, 1759, which, while authorizing the inspection
of the books of the society, forbade any minister "to interfere with
or interrupt said House in the administration or distribution of its
funds." [782]
The cédula of February 21, 1759, was reaffirmed on repeated occasions
when the Misericordia refused to submit its books to the audiencia. The
last law touching upon this particular question was promulgated on
August 2, 1787, when it was decreed that the accounts, books, records,
and work of the Misericordia and its officials should be subject to
the inspection of the audiencia. [783]
Not only was the opposition of the Misericordia a source of dispute
between that society and the audiencia, but the matter of financial
inspection caused disputes between the audiencia and other officials
and departments of the government. The reforms of 1787 made trouble
between the superintendent and the audiencia. Since this was a
financial matter, the former claimed the right of auditing these
accounts, which the audiencia refused to concede for the reason that
it had always had supervision over these funds (when the right was
exercised by any secular authority). The question was definitely
settled by the cédula of January 22, 1803, which ordered that "the
money of temporalities, pious funds, and charitable societies should be
put at the disposal of the acuerdo, and that if any matters relative to
those branches were then pending before the superintendent, they should
be remitted at once to the audiencia." [784] This was accordingly
done by Governor (and Superintendent) Aguilar, [785] and after that
time the jurisdiction of the audiencia was no longer questioned.
Shortly after the establishment of the consulado of Manila in 1769,
a bitter dispute arose between that body and the audiencia for
jurisdiction over cases involving the commerce of the Misericordia. On
the basis of the cédula of July 8, 1774, the consulado claimed
exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes involving trade which arose
between merchants. It advanced the contention that in all suits
involving losses of galleons the society should be considered in the
case of an individual merchant. The audiencia, basing its claims on the
royal patronage, declared the consulado to have exceeded its powers,
in assuming the jurisdiction described above, and fined several of
its members. The consulado appealed the case, and in reply the king
promulgated a cédula on June 7, 1775, declaring that neither to the
audiencia nor to the consulado belonged the jurisdiction over such
cases, but that they should be tried in first instance by the Council
of the Indies. [786] The reasons assigned for this decision were that
the consulado could not try such cases because merchants constituted
its membership and because the fiscal and two oidores also belonged to
its tribunal. Neither the audiencia nor the consulado, accordingly,
could impartially try commercial suits between merchants and the
Misericordia; accordingly thereafter all evidence should be submitted
to the Council for special action.
The audiencia and the governor had supervision over espolios and vacant
benefices. [787] When a prelate entered into office it was his duty to
file with the fiscal an inventory of all properties belonging to him
at the time of his advent to the diocese. [788] On the occasion of his
death a treasury official was designated to estimate and administer
the property left, pay the debts of the deceased churchman, execute
his will with regard to his property in accordance with the law,
and turn over the residue to the royal treasury. This process was
known as taking the espolio.
The espolio of a deceased prelate was taken, according to the early
laws, by an official of the royal treasury, who was designated by the
president for the purpose, and who officiated under the supervision of
the audiencia. The tribunal verified the autos and substantiated the
proceedings of the agent. [789] Whether any modifications in the manner
of collecting, distributing or accounting for the funds or properties
derived from these espolios were made elsewhere is not clear, but
in the Philippines the abuses which arose in the settling of these
ecclesiastical estates and benefices made the personal intervention
of the oidores necessary on a number of occasions. By royal cédula
of June 23, 1712, it was ordered that in all the audiencias of the
Indies the magistrate next in rank to the senior oidor should be
constituted as the
private judge, who, with the concurrence of the oficiales reales,
should have jurisdiction over and should proceed against, receive
and collect all the products and rents of the vacant archbishoprics
and bishoprics until the day on which the new prelates should
take possession of their offices, proceeding with full cognizance
... to the collection ... of whatever might be due, ... with the
assistance of the oficiales reales who in this matter are subject
to the royal audiencia. [790]
By this same law the audiencias, viceroys, presidents and tribunals
were forbidden to interfere with this judge in the execution of
his duties, or to impede the execution or the law in any manner
whatsoever. The estates of prelates were thus placed on a basis similar
to that occupied by the properties of civilians, which, we have noted,
were administered by a special magistrate of the audiencia. This cédula
also provided that all money left as a residue, after the debts of
the prelates were paid, should be sent to the king for distribution.
In view of the above-mentioned law, the practice followed in 1715,
on the death of Bishop Gorospe of Nueva Segovia, seems to have been a
direct violation of the royal command, and somewhat different from the
usual method of settling the estates of prelates. As soon as Gorospe
died at Magaldán, Pangasinán, the alcalde mayor of the province sent
immediate notification to the governor and audiencia. The tribunal,
in acuerdo, on the motion of the fiscal, authorized the alcalde mayor
and the treasury officials to take the espolio of that prelate, which
order was duly complied with. [791] The audiencia also dispatched a
formal notification to Archbishop de la Cuesta and the metropolitan
chapter, designating the former as the ecclesiastical governor of
the bishopric. [792]
The significant feature of this espolio is that it was taken by an
official as inferior in rank as an alcalde mayor through the express
authorization of the audiencia, instead of being conducted by the
second magistrate of the audiencia as the law directed. It is possible
that the arrival of the cédula of June 24, 1712, had been delayed, or
that this may have been a case, so frequent in the Spanish colonies,
of compliance without obedience. Certain it is that the conditions
of life and travel in the provinces were of such a character that an
oidor would have found it more comfortable to remain in the capital
and delegate the disagreeable duties of the espolio in a far-distant
province to the resident alcalde mayor. Attention has already been
called to various complaints made by governors and others against the
disinclination of the magistrates to submit to the inconveniences of
provincial inspections. Again, it is very probable that the time and
attention of the magistrate whose duty it should have been to take
this espolio were occupied with more important judicial duties. [793]
The citation or further multiplication of data relative to espolios
would be monotonous and unprofitable. Sufficient has been said
already to show the extensive participation of the audiencia in
the administration and settlement of the estates of prelates and the
assignment and care of vacant benefices. It may be noted, however, that
the audiencia suffered little if any diminution of its authority over
the espolio through the Ordinance of Intendants. That code deprived
the oficiales reales and oidores of the duty, formerly incumbent on
them, of taking espolios and conferred it upon the intendants and
corregidor-intendants of provinces. However, it was still required
that the papers relative to the proceedings should be submitted
afterward to the audiencia for legalization and approval. [794]
Appeals and cases of litigation arising from them were to be settled
in the audiencia. This decree made little difference in the procedure
in the Philippines, as the corregidor-intendants were never instituted
there, and the oidores continued in the settlement of these matters,
subject to the designation of the superintendent, who, it will be
remembered, was also governor and president of the audiencia. The
tribunal passed, as always, on all acts of espolio and heard cases
affecting them on appeal. In this manner the properties of the prelates
were administered in a conservative and legal manner and the interests
of the crown were safeguarded.
The audiencia exercised joint authority with the vicepatron over
questions relating to the construction of churches and the conservation
of ecclesiastical property. No monastery, convent, college, hospital,
or other religious institution could be founded without the consent
of the king, and this permission was obtained through the viceroy,
governor, or audiencia upon the recommendation of the prelate of
the diocese. [795] The laws of the Indies conceded that matters
which did not admit of delay could be settled by the president and
audiencia. [796] In fact, as early as August 15, 1620, Governor Fajardo
acknowledged receipt of a letter from the king in which occurred the
statement that "no church or convent, not even a chapel, ought to be,
or can be, founded unless concurrent with your permission, and that of
the Audiencia." [797] It was provided that all petitions of religious
orders for permission to construct convents and monasteries should be
referred to the council, with the recommendations of the audiencia,
but in actual practice, when the advice of the audiencia was in the
affirmative, the vicepatron gave the desired consent, reporting on his
action to the Council of the Indies. Thus we see that the governor and
audiencia in reality exercised complete authority in uncontested cases.
A large number of communications written to the audiencia by the royal
authorities exist, illustrating the nature and extent of the influence
of the audiencia in these matters. In 1604, the king learned that the
Augustinians of Cavite had founded a convent with no other authority
than that of the governor. This was contrary to the laws of the
royal patronage and the audiencia was ordered to correct the abuse,
and to see that the royal orders were obeyed in the future. [798] On
another occasion the audiencia was ordered to correct certain abuses
of the Jesuits, who had dispossessed the natives of their lands and
had built various structures thereon. The lands were ordered to be
returned to their rightful owners and the buildings destroyed. [799]
The ambitions of the friars to construct monasteries, convents and
hospitals, and otherwise to manifest their powers and add to their
increasing strength had to be checked frequently. The audiencia was
called upon to do this throughout the history of the Islands. Possibly
the best illustration of the authority of the audiencia in these
matters may be noted in the part which it played in restraining the
Augustinians from the further extension of their influence during
the period from 1763 to 1778. The entire matter was summarized in the
consulta of the Council of the Indies dated December 10, 1777, and the
cédula of April 6, 1778, with unfavorable results for the Augustinians.
On November 17, 1770, the provincial of this order applied for
permission to construct a convent in Cavite and solicited an
appropriation of four thousand pesos for this purpose. It was
suggested that the money should be supplied either by the income
from vacant benefices or from the profits of the sale of betel to
the natives. The provincial laid special claim to royal aid on the
extraordinary justification that the convent of his order at Imús,
Cavite, had been bombarded and destroyed by the British in 1763. On
August 16, 1772, the Council of the Indies referred the matter to the
Audiencia of Manila and the tribunal, after an exhaustive investigation
of the subject, recommended non-compliance with the provincial's
request. In its report, the audiencia reviewed the former attempts
of this order to extend its power and influence. On December 2, 1765,
it had tried to obtain permission to construct a convent at Nagtaján,
which the audiencia and Fiscal Viana frustrated. The Augustinians
tried again on February 20, 1766, asking for permission to build at
Bagumbayan. This plan the audiencia was also able to defeat. On August
16, 1772, this same order, impatient at the delay of the Council in
answering its petition of November 17, 1770, and still persistent,
solicited permission from the governor alone, not alluding to the
fact that a petition of this sort was at that time pending before
the Council of the Indies. This request was considered in the acuerdo
with unfavorable consequences for the Augustinians.
The report of the audiencia was forwarded to the court and was
there reviewed by Francisco Leandro de Viana, formerly fiscal of the
Audiencia of Manila and at that time a member of the Council. Viana
recommended that not only should the desired permission be refused
but a rigid investigation of the legitimacy of titles to properties
held by the Augustinians should be made. He regarded as especially
reprehensible the deliberate effort on the part of the provincial to
obtain this permission from the governor in view of the unfavorable
attitude of the Council of the Indies and of the laws ordering that
licenses for the construction of convents should be given only by
the Council of the Indies, after consultation with the prelate of
the ecclesiastical district and with the audiencia, governor, or
viceroy. [800] In this way, due very largely to the influence of
the audiencia, the efforts of this order to extend its authority
were checkmated. This may be considered as a typical case of the
intervention of the audiencia in behalf of the royal patronage.
It will be noted in another connection that the audiencia was called
upon, from 1680 to 1720, partly as a tribunal of justice and partly as
an agent of the royal patron, to investigate the titles of the lands of
the friars, and, by this proceeding, the tribunal deprived the orders
of much of the property which they had usurped. [801] It may also be
noted that an oidor regularly inspected the royal hospital at Manila,
[802] and when prelates and curates were transferred from one district
or parish to another, property left by them was inventoried and
taken under the direction of the audiencia. [803] These measures were
designed to insure the security and conservation of royal property.
In summary, it may be said that the audiencia possessed joint authority
with, but not equal to the vicepatron in the regulation and supervision
of religious affairs. As a tribunal, and as an agent of the civil
government, the audiencia supported and assisted the vicepatron. At
times, indeed, it acted in his stead. We have seen that the audiencia
labored in the interests of the royal authority when it passed on the
acts of provincial synods and councils, and it inspected bulls and
briefs before they were allowed to become operative in the colony. It
sought always to bring about a peaceful settlement of disputes between
prelates, curates, and religious orders. Acting in the interests of the
civil government, the oidores made inspections in the provinces, noting
the work of the friars and parish priests in their particular fields,
giving special attention to the treatment afforded to the Indians by
their ecclesiastical protectors. The tribunal acted as the patron of
the royal colleges and universities. It regulated the administration
of ecclesiastical finances, devoting especial attention to tithes,
obras pías and espolios. And finally, as we have just noted, it was
endowed with considerable authority in determining the advisability of
authorizing the construction of churches, monasteries, and convents,
or of permitting the orders to extend their influence in various parts
of the colony. The intervention of the audiencia in these matters
was recognized by the court at Madrid and by the ecclesiastics of
the Philippines.