The audiencia was first and always a tribunal of justice. It was established for the purpose of trying cases and settling disputes. Had it no other functions than the purely judicial, however, it would not have played the important part which it did in colonial administration during two hundred years of its existence. Its chief interest to the student of history and government will not be so much its activity as a judicial institution as the relations it bore to other departments of the government. Its extraordinary powers and functions developed incidentally at first through the establishment of the institution in colonies where no other agency existed to deal with the unforeseen problems and necessities which arose from time to time. The gradual assumption and exercise of non-judicial functions are therefore the chief characteristics to be noted in the history of the Audiencia of Manila.

The aim of this chapter, however, will be to study the audiencia in its capacity as a civil judiciary and to clear the way for the discussion in subsequent chapters of the wider, and from the present viewpoint, more notable fields of its activity. An effort will be made to describe its judicial procedure, the kinds of cases which it tried, the limitations on its jurisdiction—what courts were inferior to it, and what authority was superior. This investigation will be made from the viewpoint of the historian, rather than from that of the student of jurisprudence, subject to such limitations as a lack of knowledge of the law may impose. We shall first consider the procedure of the audiencia as authorized by the laws of the Indies, illustrating this procedure by the citation of actual cases in practice.

The powers and duties of the Audiencia of Manila as defined in the special decree of establishment of May 5, 1583, have been set forth in the preceding chapter. By this decree the audiencia was granted civil and criminal jurisdiction in cases of appeal from the lower courts and original jurisdiction in those affecting the government, and the conduct of its officials. The authority of the audiencia in the latter cases was exercised through the appeals which came to it from the special investigators and visitors who tried these officials in first instance.

The laws of the Indies, after prescribing the time of meeting and the hours of the daily sessions of the audiencia, made their first important judicial regulation by forbidding viceroys and presidents to assist in the determination of suits. Cases must be tried by the properly qualified oidores, yet the president (viceroy or governor) was to sign the decisions with the magistrates.1 Unless the president were a lawyer, he was even denied cognizance of military cases. The audiencia had jurisdiction over appeals from the viceroy or governor in all government matters to which any official or private citizen might take exception.2 In case of disagreement between the audiencia and the president, it was prescribed that the question at issue should be carried to the Council of the Indies. In case the majority of the audiencia agreed to follow a certain course of action, the viceroy or president was forbidden to contravene or oppose that action. Instead, he was ordered to abide by it, appealing to the Council of the Indies for final settlement of the contention.3

There were many laws regulating the relations between the audiencia and the governor, most of which will be noted in greater detail in a subsequent chapter. The most important were the laws which ordered that the viceroys of New Spain and PerÚ should leave to the audiencias entire jurisdiction over residencias, questions involving the marriage relation4 and the administration of property of deceased persons.5 A law especially referring to the Philippines ordered the Audiencia of Manila to abstain from interfering with the government of the Chinese in the PariÁn.6 This did not forbid the trial on appeal of cases relating to the Chinese, since in practice the audiencia had authority to take cognizance of such cases. Certain extra duties were required of the oldest oidor of the audiencia, who was known as the decano. He was given complete authority over the tribunal in the absence of the president. He might assign cases to the magistrates, designate judges for special duties and determine all matters relating to the interior organization and government of the tribunal. These functions were assumed, after 1776, by the regent, and the prerogatives of the office of decano became merely nominal, except when the regent was absent. In audiencias whose size permitted it, the oldest oidor, or the regent, after that office was created, could determine whether sessions should consist of one or two salas.7 An audiencia was legally constituted, however, if only one magistrate were present.8 The audiencia was commanded to guard its proceedings with great secrecy, and such rules were formulated for its magistrates as would enable the tribunal to uphold its dignity, and command the respect of the commonwealth.

Cases of first instance were tried by inferior judges who were below the category of oidores.9 As noted in a former chapter, these judges were the alcaldes ordinarios, alcaldes mayores, and corregidores. The former tried civil and criminal cases in the towns and cities and the last two exercised extensive jurisdiction in the provinces. Cases were appealed from them to the audiencia.10 The audiencia was forbidden to concern itself with cases of first instance, excepting certain criminal suits which originated within five leagues of Manila.11

A separate sala, for the trial of criminal cases was created in the audiencias of Lima and Mexico. The magistrates serving in these salas were designated as alcaldes del crimen. They had jurisdiction in first instance over the criminal cases arising within five leagues of the capital, as referred to above, and in second instance over those appealed from the provincial judges.12 The oidores in these audiencias confined themselves to civil suits, but in audiencias where there were no alcaldes del crimen, the oidores were authorized to try both civil and criminal cases.13 The magistrates of the Audiencia of Manila had both criminal and civil jurisdiction, as that tribunal belonged to the latter class. When the number of oidores present was insufficient to do the work of the audiencia, alcaldes ordinarios or alcaldes mayores who had the necessary qualifications might be transferred temporarily to the tribunal. When acting as oidores they could not try cases over which they had formerly exercised original jurisdiction.14

A system of procedure was prescribed for the trial of cases before the audiencia and the order fixed in which these should come up for consideration. It was ordered that two slates should be kept, one for cases classified according to their importance and another for those to be tried by rotation. Cases of the first category and those which were especially urgent might supersede the latter, but when there were none of the former the second slate was to be adhered to.

Cases relating to real hacienda took precedence over all others. The president was instructed to see personally that these cases should not be subjected to delay and that at least one day a week should be set aside for their adjudication. Next in importance were cases involving infractions of royal ordinances and laws. Probate cases were given one day a week. Two days weekly were set aside for the consideration of suits which arose between Indians and between Indians and Spaniards. Cases involving the poor, however, were to take precedence over these. The audiencia was made responsible for the good treatment of the Indians and it was charged with the obligation of seeing that all suits to which Indians were parties should be tried without loss of time. Delays resulting from the carelessness of lawyers and from their eagerness to profit at the expense of the natives were discouraged. Matters of slight importance which pertained to the Indians were to be dispatched by decrees of the audiencias and viceroys; this provision was designed to avoid contentious litigation, to which the natives were characteristically inclined. It also sought thereby to protect them from dishonest judges and lawyers. Any and all of the cases mentioned in this paragraph were considered to be of such importance that they were classified among the first to be tried and determined prior to those involving property, commercial affairs, and ordinary transactions. Of the latter cases those already decided were to be reopened before the hearing of new cases of the same class. Cases involving the poor were to be given speedy consideration.15 Length of waiting should be the criterion for the consideration of the remaining cases.

The audiencia was empowered to compel testimony from all persons and authorities.16 As already noted, the oidores of audiencias which did not contain alcaldes del crimen were authorized to entertain appeals from persons who had been condemned to death.17 The same was true of all other criminal cases that were admitted to appeal. Members of religious and military orders were not exempted from the jurisdiction of the audiencia.18

The laws regulating the audiencia’s jurisdiction in civil cases seem to have varied according to the time and the policy of the government. The audiencia exercised both original and appellate jurisdiction, as we have already noted. Most of the civil suits tried by the tribunal were appealed to it from inferior judges. A law was made in 1563 ordering that cases involving less than twenty pesos might be tried by verbal process.19 This law would seem to have excluded cases of less than that value from appeal to the audiencia, as the processes had to be committed to writing in order to be appealed. The cÉdulas of November 26, 1573, and August 10, 1574, fixed the minimum amount that might be appealed at six pesos of eight reales, or 3000 maravedÍs.20 Charles V in 1542 promulgated an important law for the regulation of appeals to the audiencia. It provided that the smallest amount that might be appealed should be 300,000 maravedÍs (667 pesos).21 This law was re-promulgated on September 24, 1568, and on September 22, 1626.22 The provisions of these laws, however, probably applied only to such cases as might come from provincial justices, since appeals from city judges and ayuntamientos could be taken over by the audiencia with less trouble and expense, because of the proximity of the tribunal. As a matter of fact, this opinion is seemingly substantiated by a new law, dated June 13, 1634, which ordered that an appeal from an ayuntamiento should not be received in an audiencia unless the suit involved a sum greater than 60,000 maravedÍs, or 133 pesos.23 This was considerably less, it will be seen, than the amount fixed as the limit by the law immediately preceding it, which was promulgated in 1626.

The laws establishing the finality of the jurisdiction of the audiencia were also altered from time to time. The earliest law on the subject, dated April 24, 1545, ordered that no appeal should be made from the tribunal in cases involving less than 6000 maravedÍs (13.3 pesos).24 This limit was raised to 200 pesos by cÉdulas of April 4, 1558, and March 4, 1559, and by the ordinance of 1563.25

In 1542, the jurisdiction of the audiencia was made final in all cases appealed from the ordinary courts.26 The execution of all decisions which were not appealable was rigidly required.27 By the ordinance of 1563 it was stipulated that sentences of review which had been confirmed by the audiencia could not be appealed again, no matter how large a sum was involved.28 This was partially abrogated by the law of February 13, 1620, which ordered that cases involving 6000 pesos of 450 maravedÍs each, already terminated on review by an audiencia, might be further appealed to the king.29

Decisions were reached by the concurrence of a majority of the magistrates trying the case. When there were only two oidores present a decision had to be unanimous. In case the full quota of magistrates were present and the votes were equally divided, the fiscal might be called in to decide the case, but if the latter were prosecuting the case, or were otherwise incapacitated, a duly qualified lawyer might be chosen to serve as a special magistrate.30 This rule did not apply to the revision of sentences in civil cases wherein the value exceeded 300,000 maravedÍs; in these the concurrence of three magistrates was necessary.31 A record of the judicial decisions of the magistrates was kept in the official journal of the audiencia. Decisions and legal papers had to be signed by the magistrates involved. Oidores who registered dissenting opinions were obliged to affix their signatures to the autos with those who had voted in the affirmative, but the negative votes were also recorded.32

While the audiencia might repeal the written opinion of an inferior judge in review of sentence, the revision of verbal decisions of alcaldes ordinarios could be accomplished only when the alcalde in question had been summoned before the tribunal and the reasons for his decision had been investigated in his presence.33 The audiencia, therefore, exercised appellate jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases tried in first instance by the judges of the provinces.

If an alcalde mayor or other inferior judge failed to comply with the instructions laid down for his guidance, or if he were guilty of an abuse in the administration of justice, he was held to account by the visiting oidor who was dispatched at regular intervals for the inspection of the provinces—and for the judicial scrutiny of the provincial courts. In cases of notorious injustice special pesquisidores, usually oidores, were sent at once for the correction of the abuse in question, at the expense of the offending officials.34 These, if found guilty of wilful disobedience, were punished in accordance with the gravity of their offenses. The audiencia had appellate jurisdiction in these cases.35 The visiting oidores imposed fines in accordance with a tariff which had been formulated by the audiencia and approved by the Council of the Indies.36 All fines levied by the audiencia, either upon officials or individuals could be remitted by the president with the consent of the acuerdo.37

It was the policy of the government to give the audiencia final jurisdiction in as many cases as possible. It was desirable to endow the colonial tribunals and authorities with sufficient power to make them worthy of respect. At the same time it was necessary to relieve the Council of the Indies of the duty of hearing the vast number of individual suits which would inevitably come to it if that tribunal were made too accessible. The Council was occupied with appeals in government and justice from all of Spain’s colonies. It has been noted that the limit of value of cases which could be appealed from the audiencia to the Council of the Indies was raised in 1620 from 200 to 6000 pesos. This would seem to indicate a growing tendency to confine suits involving individuals to the colonial tribunals, thus increasing the importance of the audiencias, and at the same time making the Council of the Indies more exclusively a tribunal of administration. This change, however, was never completely effected, despite the various expedients adopted to discourage the appeal of individual cases. Persons appealing were obliged to guarantee the expenses of suit. The great cost, the delays, and the distance altogether made appeal difficult. Appeals of longer standing than two years were not received from the Philippines in the Council of the Indies.38 An investigation of the records shows that most of the cases appealed to the Council of the Indies involved administrative law in some form, having to do either with the prosecution of officials, their removal from office, the prosecution of bondsmen, residencias, conflicts of jurisdiction, or with appeals from the decision of the audiencia in commercial and ecclesiastical matters.

The gradual extension of the jurisdiction of the audiencia over encomiendas may be cited as an example of the changes in the authority of the tribunal and in its relation to the Council of the Indies. The first important legislation in regulation of the encomienda was the celebrated law of Malines, promulgated in that city by Charles V, on October 20, 1545, and enunciated at successive dates until 1610. The law prescribed the course which was to be pursued by the audiencia in suits between individuals relative to encomiendas or the Indians thereon. In these contentions the Council of the Indies and not the audiencia was the final arbiter. The duty of the latter tribunal was to collect evidence in these cases, taking the testimony of witnesses for both sides and remitting all papers, sealed, to the Council of the Indies. The council, on consideration of the evidence, rendered the final decision. The audiencia had to conclude its part of the investigation and file its report within a period of three months. This time limit was extended to six months in 1554. The purpose of this law was to guarantee justice in the assignment and retention of encomiendas by removing them from the control of the audiencias, whose magistrates, as experience had proved, often allowed themselves to be influenced by local prejudices. Encomiendas were to be assigned by the king, in theory at least, and no other authority save the monarch and his council could exercise jurisdiction over them.39

The audiencia was, however, authorized to act as the protector of persons holding Indians on encomiendas, to see that they were not unjustly deprived of or wrongfully disturbed in their holdings. In case a person were thus deprived of his Indians, the audiencia was empowered to restore conditions to their former state. If the aggressor persisted, or cared to contest the right of his opponent to the Indians in question, the audiencia was ordered to observe the law of Malines, collecting all the evidence in the case, and forwarding it to the Council of the Indies for final decision. The frequency of litigation, however, and the vast number of unimportant cases which arose under the provisions of the law of Malines came to demand too much of the time and attention of the Council of the Indies, thereby causing many delays in suits involving encomiendas. In order to remedy this defect, Philip III, on April 17, 1609, conferred on the audiencia jurisdiction over all cases involving encomiendas, repartimientos,40 tributes, and despoliations of Indians up to the value of a thousand ducats.41 Cases involving a greater value were still to be settled in conformity with the law of Malines. Finally, in 1624 it was ordered that in suits which did not involve more than three Indians and in cases wherein the costs of litigation exceeded the amount in dispute, the decree of the governor should prevail. For obvious reasons, the audiencia could not concern itself with such cases, but when the value of the Indians justified the attention of the tribunal, its decisions were final, taking precedence over those of the governor.42 This, then, was the final status of the jurisdiction of the audiencia over encomiendas as set forth in the laws of the Indies. In the Philippines the authority of the tribunal in regard to them was neither executive nor legislative, except in such cases and on such occasions as we shall refer to later. The judicial authority of the Audiencia of Manila over encomiendas was indisputable.

Having indicated the general basis upon which the authority of the audiencia rested, we may more precisely define its jurisdiction by reviewing a few of the most characteristic cases which were tried in the tribunal in accordance with the laws already discussed. The statement has been made that at the time of its establishment the audiencia was needed as a court of justice and that it was removed in 1589 for political reasons rather than because of the inadequacy or failure of the institution as a tribunal of justice. In the preceding chapter we saw that the audiencia was designed to relieve the executive of judicial duties, such as the trial of cases appealed from the alcaldes mayores of the provinces and the alcaldes ordinarios of the city. These functions, up to the time of the establishment of the audiencia, had been exercised by the governor. This had resulted in favoritism and in a perversion of justice to the private ends of the governor and of his friends. Perhaps the chief evil under the system had proceeded from the governor’s double jurisdiction, as both executive and judge, over cases involving encomiendas and encomenderos. The governor assigned encomiendas in the name of the king, and he was also judge with final jurisdiction over all suits involving them, the law of Malines being impossible of execution in the Philippines before the establishment of the audiencia, and after its withdrawal in 1589.43

The same was true in regard to commercial cases, and complaints were ever arising against the governor’s high-handed proceedings in the allotment of cargo space on the galleons to his friends, and his monopolization of the best Chinese goods that came to Manila. The governor, as in the assignment of encomiendas, enjoyed an undue advantage in these matters, for at the same time that he was the executive with the power of bestowing these favors, he was the sole judge in all contentions which arose regarding commerce. It was therefore distinctly in the interests of justice that a supreme court should be established, and it is easy to understand why those who had profited by the absence of the audiencia should oppose its restoration, and why others should take the opposite view.

Soon after the audiencia was abolished in 1589, arguments were presented at court for its restoration. From the large number of petitions that were presented, two, aside from those discussed in the preceding chapter, may be cited here because they illustrate the disadvantages from a judicial point of view of having the administration of justice in the hands of the governor, with appeal to Mexico. Francisco de la Misa, factor of the treasury of Manila, wrote a memorial to the king on May 31, 1595,44 referring to the delay which had arisen in the trial of suits involving encomiendas: the jurisdiction of the governor was not final; appeals had to be carried to the Audiencia of Mexico and cases involving a thousand ducats or more had to be taken from that tribunal to the Council of the Indies;45 this meant two appeals and much delay. He mentioned certain cases which had been pending two years, and showed that, because of the delay to which they had been subjected in Mexico, it would be at least two years more before the decisions could be returned. Misa said that conditions had reverted to the state which had existed before the audiencia was established; a much larger number of cases was awaiting trial than the governor and his lieutenant could attempt to try. These difficulties were multiplied by the fact that there was no fiscal, an officer whose services as legal adviser to the government and as prosecuting attorney were indispensable.46

Misa petitioned for a reform of the law which had established the governor as judge of ultimate recourse in cases involving one thousand pesos (ducats) or less. He believed it advisable to reduce the limit of the value of cases settled in the colony from one thousand to four hundred pesos and appeal all those exceeding the latter sum to the Audiencia of Mexico. It would result in a more equitable administration of justice, he stated, if the trial of important cases were conducted in second instance before that tribunal. This practice, though subject to great delay, would have the advantage of guaranteeing the review of these cases by a competent and properly qualified magistracy rather than by a biased and tyrannical executive. He alleged that four hundred pesos in the Philippines meant as much as a thousand elsewhere. Another suggestion advanced by Misa was that suits and investigations involving real hacienda should be tried by competent judges, rather than by the governor, whose own personal interest in the cases was often too great to ensure fair trial. Another evil pointed out by Misa, and a fairly typical one throughout the history of the colony, was the delay and uncertainty of the residencia. This defect was particularly apparent at this time because all cases of residencia had to be sent to Mexico, since there was no tribunal in Manila with jurisdiction on appeal over these official investigations. Misa described the plight of various alcaldes mayores, corregidores, and other officials who had been investigated and suspended from office, awaiting the outcome of the residencia. There were no persons to take their places; as a result, the suspended officials were without gainful employment, while their districts and offices reverted to a state of lawlessness, barbarism and disorder, without governor, judges, or incumbents. The governor had attempted to remedy the trouble by making temporary appointments from among the removed officials, but this he had no authority to do; moreover, the reinstatement of officials whose conduct was under investigation was subversive of the best interests of government and justice. The governor’s action in these cases had raised a storm of protest in the colony, yet he was forced to take these steps in preference to leaving the natives without government and protection. Misa presented this picture of the state of affairs in the colony to show the evil results of the absence from the Philippines of a tribunal with authority to conduct residencias and to provide offices.

While this series of complaints was not followed by an open advocacy of the establishment of a royal audiencia in Manila, the defects which were pointed out showed the desirability of putting an end to the governor’s intervention in judicial matters. There can be no question but that the arrival at court of such letters showed clearly the need of a tribunal at Manila for the administration of justice.

Complaints were also directed against this state of affairs by Antonio de Morga, lieutenant-governor of the Islands. This official argued that the commonwealth required an audiencia in order to secure a more equitable administration of justice.47 He called attention to the overcrowded docket of the court over which he presided and emphasized the impossibility of the satisfactory termination of the cases waiting to be tried. That the defects referred to in these communications were appreciated at court is evidenced by the cÉdula of May 26, 1595, which emphasized the necessity of administering justice in the Philippines with “universal equality, mildness and satisfaction.”48

Nevertheless the presence of a tribunal had the effect of encouraging the inhabitants of the Islands to litigation. It has been said that there have been more lawsuits in the Philippines than in any other country of the same size and population, which remark probably would apply to any country where the Spanish judicial system had lately obtained. This condition was no doubt due to the fact that adequate facilities existed whereby the natives could go to law. Lawyers and judges were ever unduly ready to encourage and hear any suits which might arise if there were any way in which profit might be derived therefrom. Pardo de Tavera, in discussing these phases of the legal history of the Islands, states that the laws protected the native, but at the same time they kept him in a state of perpetual tutelage. Judgments were passed by native magistrates in suits between natives in the later days of Spanish rule, but in general throughout the period of Spain’s domination suits were prosecuted under the direction of a protector of the Indians in case one party to a suit was a Spaniard, or when the rights of the natives were in any way jeopardized or injured by a Spaniard. “In this manner Spanish prestige was preserved, inasmuch as it was no longer an Indian who asked for the punishment of one belonging to a superior race, but a Spaniard who took up the Indian’s cause and conducted the suit against another Spaniard.”49 Thus it may be seen that in Spain’s judicial system the means were provided, in theory at least, whereby the meanest native could obtain justice, not only among his fellows, but in cases to which members of the superior Spanish race were parties.

The declared purpose of the whole system of legislation for the Indies was the material and spiritual well-being of the Indians.50 The officials of the government, the churchmen, and the encomenderos were especially charged in their commissions and in official correspondence to make the protection and welfare of the Indians their chief concern. Attention has just been directed to the office of protector of the Indians. The fiscal, or one of his assistants, attended to that duty in the Audiencia of Manila, while agents (agentes fiscales) were especially commissioned by the fiscal to act in that capacity in the provinces.51 We have also noted that the oidores were charged with the duty of protecting the Indians when officiating as visitors in the provinces. Such cases, also those involving decisions of corregidores and alcaldes mayores by which the natives were dealt with unjustly, were appealable, under certain circumstances, to the audiencia. These cases commanded the immediate attention of the tribunal, to the exclusion of other business.52 Among the vast number of cases at our disposal which illustrate the jurisdiction of the tribunal over such matters, the following may be selected as typical. On May 16, 1796, the fiscal brought a charge in the audiencia against the governor, exposing the sufferings inflicted upon the Indians of the barrio of Santa Ana by the corregidor of Tondo53 in connection with the construction of a road. The audiencia refused to consider the case in first instance, as the matter was not contentious, but it recommended that the fiscal should make the charges before the governor and have him render a decision upon the matter; if exception were taken to his decision the case could be appealed to the audiencia. The oidores found that they were without jurisdiction over the case in first instance and they declared that their entertainment of the suit would be in violation of the laws of the Indies.54 The fiscal appealed from the judgment of the audiencia. The Council of the Indies, in a return communication dated May 13, 1798,55 approved the ruling of the audiencia, affirming that in cases of the nature referred to, the fiscal, as protector of the Indians, should submit testimony in behalf of the latter to the governor, who should consider whether the Indians had been wronged and render his decision accordingly. If exception were taken to the decision of the governor, the case could then be appealed to the audiencia. While these appeals and this litigation were in progress, the Indians were being subjected to repeated hardships.

This case is illustrative of the ineffectiveness of the system for the administration of justice in Spain’s colonies. It had taken two years for this appeal to be carried to Spain and receive the attention of the Council of the Indies. The answer had yet to be returned, probably requiring at least a year more for the return of the Vera Cruz and Acapulco galleons and for the proper proceedings to be carried on in the Manila tribunal. It is questionable whether the Indians in whose interests this was ultimately done ever received any benefit from these legal proceedings.

The case which has just been described involved the trial and punishment of a corregidor in the defense and protection of the natives. It is important to note that this case was ordered to be tried in first instance by the governor and not by the audiencia. The jurisdiction of the latter tribunal in second instance was confirmed by the king on this occasion. By the law of October 9, 1812, and by others made pursuant to the Constitution of 1812, the audiencia was given jurisdiction in first instance over cases involving provincial officials, and particularly judges. In regard to the care and protection of the Indians, which was involved in this controversy, the law provided that such cases should be treated originally by the corregidores and alcaldes mayores with appeal to the audiencia.56 But this case dealt primarily with the official conduct of a corregidor, over whom the governor had more direct jurisdiction. The cÉdula of May 13, 1798, which constituted the reply of the king to the appeal of the fiscal in the case described above, ordered that henceforth in cases affecting the relations of the corregidores and alcaldes mayores on the one part and the Indians on the other, the fiscal, audiencia, and governor should act in acuerdo, in that way avoiding friction and quarrels over jurisdiction.57

That the audiencia did not always try cases relating to the Indians with requisite promptness, is evidenced by the many and repeated letters of the king to the tribunal, to the fiscal, as protector of the Indians, and to the regent, chiding these officials for delay. On many occasions the royal zeal for justice in the treatment of the Indians, based on a lack of knowledge of the true nature of the Filipino, completely overruled all considerations of practicability and common sense. As an illustration of this, on June 20, 1686, certain natives of the province of BulacÁn sent false evidence to the Council of the Indies; this testimony was taken in preference to that remitted by the audiencia, the decision of the latter body being reversed by the Council of the Indies. The audiencia refused to allow the execution of the new judgment; the oidores all offered to resign in protest, and the regent, at the risk of removal, reopened the case. It was proved by the testimony of a number of officials and by the confessions of the natives who had perjured themselves that the evidence upon which the Council had acted was false.58 A record of these proceedings was remitted to the Council and that tribunal promptly reversed its former decision.

Further illustrations of the authority of the audiencia in cases involving natives may be seen in suits which arose from time to time over the illegal treatment of the latter by the friars and the unjust occupation of the natives’ lands by the religious orders. These suits afford illustration, also, of the services of the audiencia as an agency to force persons to show their titles to lands which they held.59 This jurisdiction will be given more detailed treatment in the proper place, but the brief citation of one or two cases among many seems advisable to illustrate the activity of the audiencia in protecting the Indians, both by trying suits involving them and by actually intervening in their behalf.

Various revolts broke out among the Indians near Manila from 1740 to 1750. These insurrections were said to have been provoked by the encroachments of the Augustinians and Dominicans on the lands of the natives. The matter was called to the attention of the home government, and Pedro CalderÓn EnrÍquez, an oidor, was ordered to investigate the charges made against these religious orders and to ascertain the validity of their claims to the lands in question. The friars, when ordered to submit titles to a secular judge, refused to comply, claiming ecclesiastical exemption. In the face of their opposition, CalderÓn dispossessed the friars of the lands which they were said to have usurped and which they were continuing to hold without legitimate title, restoring the lands to the crown. The case was appealed to the audiencia and that tribunal upheld the visitor.

CalderÓn also found that the University of Santo TomÁs and the Dominicans, in collusion with a clerk of the audiencia, had taken lands from the native town of SÍlang in 1743. CalderÓn restored the lands to their rightful owners and his act was approved in judicial review by the audiencia. The friars took exception to this by appealing to the Council of the Indies. The Council notified the audiencia of its affirmation of the judgment of CalderÓn and further stated that the lands of SÍlang, ImÚs, San NicolÁs, and Cavite had been unjustly seized and should be restored. This was not only an affirmation but an extension of the sentence of the oidor, made by the Council after the royal fiscal (of the Council of the Indies) had reviewed all the evidence presented in the case. This suit shows the efforts made to carry out the royal intention that the natives of Spain’s colonies should be justly treated. It also shows the respective jurisdictions of the audiencia and Council of the Indies as courts of review and appeal in adjusting disputes between the church and the Indians.

In addition to the above, the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over the religious themselves, both as individuals and as subjects of the king, punishing them for violation of the civil laws of the realm to which they were amenable as subjects. An illustration of this is furnished by the following case which occurred in 1617. Two Augustinian provincials were murdered, one, Fray GerÓnimo de Salas, by poisoning, and his successor, Fray Vicente SepÚlveda, by strangulation. A tribunal of friars, composed of nine prominent members of the Augustinian order, was appointed by the bishop for the investigation of the crime. This body, after due consideration, caused six members of the order to be apprehended; four of them were believed to be guilty of the murder and two were suspected of connivance at the crime. On July 31, 1617, these six culprits were handed over to the civil government, and on September 2 of that year, the four guilty ecclesiastics were condemned to death by the audiencia, while the other two were sentenced to six years of service in the galleys. This case illustrates the extent of ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised respectively by the church and government tribunals under the fuero mixto.60 The former, on this occasion, made the preliminary investigations and handed the culprits over to the secular authority with recommendations; the latter conducted the trial, passed sentence and saw to its execution. The trial and conclusion of this case covered the remarkably short period of thirty-three days.61

Speaking generally, the authority of the audiencia over ecclesiastical affairs extended to disputes between orders, between the government and the church, or its representatives, to cases relating to land titles, to those alleging abuses of the Indians by the friars, to cases involving the royal patronage, and to cases of fuerza.62 As the question of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the audiencia will be discussed more fully in subsequent chapters, no effort will be made at this time to particularize concerning its authority over church affairs, it being merely desirable to suggest the fact here that the audiencia had jurisdiction in suits involving the church and the civil government and in those which had to do with the protection of the natives from the abuses of the ecclesiastics.

Records of thousands of cases exist to show the different kinds of suits tried judicially in the audiencia. Civil and criminal matters came up in the tribunal as in all other courts of law, and hence, as such, merit only passing attention. Among civil cases possibly the most typical were those relating to encomiendas. It must be borne in mind that the Spaniard, however mistakenly from the theoretical point of view, regarded the encomiendas as property in the same sense as a modern farmer regards his farm as property. He paid a rental or tax to the government, he engaged in agriculture for gain, and, as we have seen, the moral duty of protecting, uplifting, or educating the Indians rested but lightly on his conscience. Therefore, as these cases are discussed in the following pages, the value of the property and not the treatment of the Indians on the encomiendas is the first consideration. As already stated, the law of Malines reserved for the Council of the Indies final action in all encomienda suits involving more than one thousand ducats.63

Many suits involving encomiendas came up prior to the establishment of the audiencia; the defects apparent in the trial of these cases by the governor show clearly the need of an audiencia at that time. The earliest case noted in this connection was prosecuted in 1580 by the asesor of the governor against DoÑa LucÍa de Loaxa, the widow of an encomendero, with the object of dispossessing her of an encomienda held at ButuÁn, Mindanao.64 She was charged with having nullified her title by marriage to another encomendero, since the law forbade married women to hold encomiendas. In her defense she alleged that the desire of the governor to enforce the law was only pretense, since many married women in the Philippines held encomiendas. She stated that the governor desired to deprive her of her property in order that he might bestow it upon a friend. This case was carried to the Council of the Indies, and it illustrates the effectiveness of the law of Malines, which took from the governor authority over a case in which he was interested and gave final jurisdiction to the tribunal in Spain. The papers pertaining to this case were returned to the governor with orders to do as the law commanded. The defendant was accordingly removed from the encomienda.

Another case was disposed of in a slightly different manner. On January 22, 1581, Juan GutiÉrrez de Figueroa, second husband of Magdalena RodrÍguez, widow of an encomendero of Mindanao, filed suit before the governor praying to be continued as possessor of an encomienda which his wife had held prior to her marriage to him. He brought the suit on the grounds that he was a soldier and was accordingly deserving of reward. This case, in accordance with the provisions of Malines, came within the jurisdiction of the governor. He denied the petition, but the soldier appealed the case to the Council of the Indies and that tribunal again reversed the decision of the governor on May 23, 1584.

In January, 1582, Bishop Salazar, as protector of the Indians, brought suit before Governor Ronquillo de PeÑalosa against Juan de Ayala, a Spaniard holding various encomiendas in different parts of the Island of LuzÓn, but resident in Manila. Two specific charges were brought against Ayala. He was said to have reduced the Indians on his encomiendas to the status of slaves, which was forbidden by the law of November 9, 1526.65 He had also violated the law which prescribed that encomenderos should live on their encomiendas,66 and give their personal attention to the Indians thereon. Ayala adduced testimony to prove that this law was a dead-letter and that it was disregarded by most of the encomenderos. He even showed that there were many of them residing in Spain who held encomiendas in Spain and PerÚ. Governor Ronquillo felt that the evidence at hand was insufficient to justify a decision in this case, so he permitted it to be carried to the Council of the Indies. The latter tribunal rendered its decision on June 24, 1584, communicating to the Audiencia of Manila its ruling that Ayala should be allowed to retain the encomiendas in question, but the president and oidores were especially charged to enforce the law prohibiting slavery in the Indies.

The procedure in these cases confirms the laws already alluded to, which were promulgated before the establishment of the audiencia, that the governor should have jurisdiction in suits involving less than a thousand ducats, with appeal to the Council of the Indies. It would also appear, from the data at our command, that the audiencia inherited the governor’s former authority in these matters.

During the period from 1583 to 1589, and after the re-establishment of the audiencia in Manila, this tribunal exercised authority over suits involving encomiendas. There is so much sameness in the nature of these cases that little would be added by describing them. There appears evidence of considerable conflict of jurisdiction, however, between the governor and the audiencia over the adjustment of the latter to the new situation relative to the encomiendas. Governors AcuÑa, Tello and Fajardo sought on various occasions to retain jurisdiction over suits involving encomiendas on the basis of the law of Malines, notwithstanding the fact that the audiencia had been given the duty of trying such cases. When appeals were made to the Council of the Indies, that tribunal made clear its determination that the audiencia should try suits involving encomiendas, but that in administrative matters relating thereto the will of the governor should prevail, unless his decision were contested through legal channels. An illustration of such difference of opinion may be noted in the letter written by Governor Juan NiÑo de Tavora on August 4, 1628, to the Council of the Indies. Tavora complained of the action of the audiencia in regard to the disposal of a case involving an encomendero who had married the widow of another encomendero, and who had tried to unite and hold both their encomiendas after marriage. The governor contended that two persons holding encomiendas by previous right should choose the more desirable one and relinquish the other, in accordance with the practice in other places. Especially should this be done in the Philippines, he held, because there were so few encomiendas in the Islands. The fiscal approved of this suggestion and made a motion before the acuerdo of the audiencia that this course should be pursued, but, as no laws had been promulgated on the subject, there was no precedent to follow. The audiencia accordingly declared that such a course as the governor had suggested would not be legal. Tavora petitioned the Council of the Indies for a ruling on the subject. The Council sustained the governor in its consulta of January 15, 1630.

There was apparently no limit to the value of suits involving encomiendas which might be tried in the audiencia, and appealed to the Council of the Indies. There exists the record of one case in which the encomienda was valued at 223,000 pesos. In this suit the fiscal proceeded against DoÑa Juana Leal and Francisco de Rebolledo, residents of Mexico, for possession of an encomienda held in the Philippines. This case affords an illustration of the delays to which the course of justice was subject, it being appealed to the Council of the Indies in 1612, and not finally settled till 1620. A suit involving an encomienda valued at 430,102 pesos came before the audiencia in 1703, when two residents of Manila, named Delgado and Abaurrea, were dispossessed of an encomienda by the governor. The encomienda was awarded immediately to Juan de EchevarrÍa and Antonio de Endaya. The latter were prosecuted in the audiencia by the dispossessed encomenderos, and the tribunal, in compliance with the law of Malines, made the prescribed investigation, recommending that the governor’s action should be disapproved, since the evidence showed that the persons installed on the encomienda were distant relatives of the governor. The Council adopted the recommendations of the audiencia in this case, ordering that the original encomenderos should be restored to their estate, and that this breach of royal commands should be registered against the governor to be answered in his residencia.

Another suit, of a similar nature to that described above, was brought in the audiencia in 1713 against Juan de Rivas, who had been assigned two encomiendas in Leyte and CebÚ, respectively, by the governor, thus depriving one Saramiento who had held them formerly. The plaintiff claimed that he had made great improvements on these estates, spending all his income thereon, and as yet had received no profits from the lands. He petitioned, therefore, that these encomiendas should be bestowed upon him for another term.67 The audiencia withheld its judgment on this case, referring it to the Council. That body, after seeking the advice of the royal fiscal and contador, recommended to the king that Saramiento should be allowed to retain the encomiendas for another term, and it was accordingly done, a royal order to that effect being expedited on May 29, 1715.

It is notable how frequently the action of the audiencia or that of the governor was confirmed by the Council of the Indies. In most of the cases which have been described, the original papers, including letters, autos and testimonios, each expediente68 containing from one hundred to two thousand pages, are marked “seen by the Council”, “action of the governor confirmed”, or “no action to be taken”; the original decisions being thus confirmed. It may be concluded, therefore, from this brief study that the audiencia had appellate jurisdiction as a court of law over suits involving encomiendas, and, furthermore, that the tribunal acting in that capacity placed a very effective and definite check on the governor in his executive control over encomiendas.

Property suits, aside from those involving encomiendas, were numerous. One noted case may be cited in which the heirs of Governor Fausto Cruzat y GÓngora in 1703 brought suit to recover money owed by Gaspar SÁnchez and Bernardo de GuirÓs to the ex-governor. The audiencia failed to award the sum, which approximated 8000 pesos. The case was appealed to the Council of the Indies and the decision was reversed, the plaintiffs being awarded the money originally sued for, with costs of suit. A similar case was brought by the children and heirs of Governor Bustamante against Juan de Nebra, general of the galleon. The case was tried in the audiencia and the tribunal decided in favor of the defendant. The case was appealed to the Council of the Indies and the decision was reversed.69 In 1736 Gaspar ThomÉ, a Frenchman, sued the estate of a deceased debtor, Juan de Olerte, for 2000 pesos.70 The case was appealed to the Council of the Indies, and fully two hundred pages of documentary material exist, carefully annotated and digested, to show how thoroughly and with what formality a suit of even that small import was tried. We have already noted the tendency of the government to discourage the appeal of property suits to the Council of the Indies. The jurisdiction of the audiencia was final, for the most part, in suits involving sums from 200 to 6000 pesos.

As matters of trade were always important in the life and politics of the Islands, commercial suits commanded a large share of the attention of the audiencia. Up to 1769 the jurisdiction of the audiencia was supreme in matters relating thereto,71 but on December 13 of that year a consulado was established at Manila, thereby relieving the audiencia of much of its former control over commercial affairs.72 The consulado, from the time of its establishment, was an ever-present thorn in the side of the audiencia and conflicts over the respective jurisdictions of the tribunals73 were continually arising. We may briefly cite one or two cases to illustrate the respective jurisdictions of the audiencia and the tribunal of the consulado. On December 26, 1806, action was brought by two Spaniards against the British firm of Jacob Smith and Company on account of the inferior quality of goods sold to the plaintiff by that firm.74 Suit was brought originally in the audiencia, but the consulado applied to the governor for jurisdiction in the case on the ground that, as a commercial suit, it should be tried in the consulado.75 The governor awarded jurisdiction to the audiencia. The consulado re-appealed the case, but the Council sustained the governor’s decision on the ground that this was a suit between a private individual and a merchant which should be tried in the audiencia, the tribunal which usually tried cases between individuals. The function of the consulado, the royal decree stated, was to try suits of a commercial character which arose between merchants.76

An occasion on which the jurisdiction of the audiencia was unquestioned may be noted in the suit which was appealed to the Council of the Indies from the audiencia in 1698, over the wrecking of the galleon “San Francisco Xavier”. The admiral, Don Esteban Ramos, was held accountable for the silver carried on the ship and the merchants of Manila sued him for what they had lost in the wreck.77 It was charged that Ramos had landed the silver, but was seeking to conceal that fact, claiming instead that it was lost. The case was appealed to the Council by the defendant.78 The Council referred the case to the Junta de Guerra,79 and that tribunal reversed the decision of the audiencia, declaring that Ramos was a faithful servant of His Majesty, and still a poor man. There was no possibility of his having the silver. Ramos was transferred to the Atlantic flota.80 The royal fiscal, in the opinion rendered for the guidance of the junta, made the comment that frequently the oidores of colonial audiencias were influenced, against their own ideas of justice, by the opinions and wishes of the most powerful residents. Such was possibly the case in Manila on this occasion. This statement at least shows that those in control at Madrid were aware of some of the fundamental weaknesses of the colonial audiencias.

Another typical case, indirectly connected with commerce, occurred in 1713, when the fiscal of the audiencia prosecuted three captains, Enrique Boynont, Fernando Gall and Diego Brunet, who had arrived at Cavite in command of French merchant and exploring ships, without the royal permission to trade in the Islands. These captains, who were foreigners, of course, were charged with smuggling, and were brought before the royal audiencia. The charges against them were not proved, and in due time the cases were dismissed.81 The laws of the Indies authorized the governor and the alcaldes del crimen to try cases of strangers,82 but in Manila, where there were no magistrates of this category, such cases were tried by the audiencia.

Perhaps the most important commercial suit that was ever tried in the Audiencia of Manila, came before that tribunal in 1656, when several residents of Mexico were excluded from the use of the galleon and their goods confiscated. This action was in accordance with repeated cÉdulas and regulations which reserved the space in the galleon for the exclusive use of the Manila merchants and authorities. Mexican traders, who had from time to time shipped goods on the galleons, were forbidden to crowd out the Manila merchants, who depended on that trade exclusively. The fine levied on this occasion amounted to 273,133 pesos. The case was appealed to the Council of the Indies, the aforesaid decision was upheld, and the sum was finally ordered paid in Mexico.83

During the greater part of the audiencia’s existence there was no consulado in Manila and the jurisdiction of the audiencia in commercial cases extended to suits between merchants for space on the galleon. The tribunal had jurisdiction over the trial of officials for dishonesty in the assignment of galleon space: investigations of officials charged with reserving more than their due share of space, and such other cases as are mentioned in the laws of the Indies as being the concern of the consulados of Lima and Mexico.84 Officers of the galleons were tried for mistreating seamen, for smuggling, for exceeding the limit of merchandise allowed, for giving passage to lewd women and to persons travelling on the galleons without permission. They were tried for carrying more slaves than they were allowed by law to carry, for charging exorbitant prices of passage, and for failing to turn in accounts of money collected. Commanders were often held criminally responsible for carelessness in navigation and for shipwrecks. These cases were tried in the tribunal of the consulado after 1769.

The audiencia had appellate jurisdiction over all residents of the colony, both natives and Spaniards. All crimes committed within five leagues of the city of Manila were ordered to be tried by the oidores in first instance,85 but unless they were of extraordinary importance, special investigators, usually alcaldes mayores or alcaldes ordinarios, were delegated to try them in the name of the audiencia.86 As already stated, most of the criminal cases arising in the colony were tried in first instance in the provinces by the alcaldes mayores. Cases appealed to the audiencia were reviewed in that tribunal. The trial consisted of an examination of the summary or abstract of the case as it was originally tried by the lower judge and, if errors were found to exist, the decision was either reversed or the case was remanded to the judge who first had tried the case, for second trial.87 The audiencia did not try the case with the defendant present. It merely reviewed the proceedings of the lower judge. Criminal cases were not ordinarily appealable to the Council of the Indies.

The procedure in criminal cases was generally so similar to that already described that it is unnecessary to give any illustration of the audiencia’s criminal jurisdiction. Most of the cases that eventually reached the audiencia involved Spaniards, native caciques, and half-castes. Natives who were charged with robbery, murder, and crimes of a depraved nature were usually of a class unable to finance appeals to the audiencia. This fact probably accounts for the scarcity of criminal cases appealed during the first two centuries of the audiencia’s existence.88 However, the reforms of the nineteenth century brought an increased number of cases into the audiencia by systematizing the administration of justice, differentiating the judgeships from administrative offices, and providing for greater facility of appeal.89

It is probable that in criminal as well as in civil cases, Spaniards derived considerable benefit from the fact that the audiencia was composed of magistrates of their own nationality. High officials, no doubt, escaped the consequences of their misdeeds more easily than did men of more modest social and political attainments. This is shown by the well-known case of the murder by Governor Fajardo of his wife on July 21, 1621; this came up before an audiencia which was composed of judges who were largely under the governor’s domination. The tribunal gave the matter a cursory investigation, after which the governor was allowed to go unpunished.90 We shall see that proceedings were different, however, when officials under investigation were charged with offenses against the government. The residencia, which dealt with such charges, was a pitiless form of inquisition in which the officiating magistrate was in duty bound to find his victim guilty, if possible.

Criminal cases of a character slightly different from those described above were prosecuted by the government for the infraction of any governmental regulation, or for the evasion of the payment of taxes or duties. The collection of revenues devolved upon the oficiales reales and they were ordered to accomplish their duties in this particular, if possible, without the assistance of the courts.91 Numerous cases did come up in the audiencia, however, involving the prosecution of individuals for violations of the alcabala, quinto, and the tax on the export of silver (comisos). Persons assisting in the apprehension of violators of these laws were rewarded with a part of the proceeds of the fine, the remainder becoming the property of real hacienda. On October 6, 1783, the final jurisdiction in cases of smuggling and non-payment of the king’s fifth was taken from the audiencia, appeals being authorized to the Council of the Indies.92

Reference has already been made to the services of an oidor as special auditor de guerra. This, as well as other matters relating to the jurisdiction of the governor and captain-general over military matters, wherein the audiencia had no authority, will be noted when an examination is made of the relations of the governor and audiencia in a subsequent chapter. Suffice it to say here that the audiencia did not have jurisdiction as a court over soldiers or military affairs.

Closely related to the subject of the defense of the Islands, and the exercise of judicial authority over soldiers was the special jurisdiction which the governor had over matters relating to the Chinese. This subject will be treated in greater detail when we discuss the relations of the audiencia and the governor.

During the first two centuries of its existence the audiencia had jurisdiction as a judicial tribunal in the cases and instances which have been noted. It had civil and criminal authority, original and appellate. Its decisions were final in civil suits on claims for six thousand pesos or less. Criminal cases were settled in the audiencia.

The judicial authority of the audiencia was impeded during the greater part of its history by the failure of the government to entrust it with complete jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters, and by the tendency of the latter to interfere in matters of minute and insignificant detail, which should have been left to the magistrates of the tribunal. The Constitution of 1812 and the reforms made in pursuance thereof really effected the changes which had long been needed. The audiencia’s jurisdiction was made final in all civil suits and increased in administrative cases; thereafter no appeals were made to the Council of the Indies unless they involved administrative law. Cases involving official dishonesty, incapacity, residencia, pesquisas, treason, disputes between audiencias and other tribunals over conflicts of jurisdiction, and questions of the interpretation of the law were still carried to Spain. These were important steps for the improvement of colonial judicial procedure; they served to simplify it, preventing a multiplicity of cases from being carried to Spain which should have been settled within the colony. These tardy reforms left to the home government more time in which to occupy itself with questions of governmental policy, leaving to the audiencias more authority and responsibility in purely judicial matters, thus giving to them a greater prestige in the commonwealths wherein they were situated.

The qualifications for the magistracy were also raised at this time, although it cannot be said that the magistrates of the audiencias were at any time incompetent or lacking in ability. The audiencias of the colonies were given equal status with those of the Peninsula, and were thus elevated in dignity and standing to the rank of tribunals of the first order. The chief defects of the colonial judicial system of the seventeenth century were thus corrected, though somewhat tardily. It is unfortunate indeed that these changes applied only to a mere skeleton of Spain’s former colonial empire.

In this chapter we have discussed the audiencia as a formal court of justice, with methods, practices, and traditions little different from those of any tribunal of justice. However, it had judicial authority more extensive and far-reaching than has yet been indicated. Among the different kinds of cases over which the audiencia had jurisdiction, perhaps none was more important, and certainly none was more exclusively peculiar to the Spanish judicial system than suits of residencia. So distinct and extraordinary was that phase of judicial activity that it merits consideration apart from a discussion of the audiencia’s functions as an ordinary court of law. In the following section we shall note its jurisdiction as an administrative court over suits wherein the government was a party and wherein the object was not only to punish offenders, but to act as a preventive of official misconduct.