Chapter XI: The Audiencia and the Church: the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (3)

[63] Including the two principal Spanish historians of the Philippines, Martínez de Zúñiga (Estadismo, I, 243) and Montero y Vidal (Historia general, I, 88).

[64] These letters, dated June 18, 1583, are among the Zulueta Papers at Manila.

[65] A procurador, according to Escriche (Diccionario, II, 759), "is one who, by virtue of power or faculty conceded by another, acts in his name." There were in later times several procurators representing different interests of the Philippines at the Court of Madrid. The associated merchants had one or more, the consulado, each religious order, etc. These procuradores were usually lawyers, not infrequently men who had been in the islands. An interesting parallel might be noted between the procuradores and the American colonial agents of prerevolutionary days. Zúñiga here gives Rivera entire credit for the bringing of the audiencia to Manila--op. cit., I, 175. See note 16, supra.

[66] The alcabala (al que vale, "according to value") was a percentage tax levied on goods (movable and immovable) sold or exchanged. Merchants were held accountable for the payment of this tax, and for this purpose their accounts were examined by royal officials at regular intervals (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 143). It was first introduced into the Indies by Philip II in 1574, having been levied in Spain as early as 1079, though not in its perfected form. In accordance with the tariff of November 1, 1591, it was exacted from merchants, apothecaries, encomenderos (having farms and cattle-ranches), ragpickers, cloth-makers, silversmiths, goldsmiths, blacksmiths, and shoemakers. An alcabala was paid on wine. By the cédula of June 7, 1576, the rate of alcabala was fixed at two per cent. In Perú it was raised to four per cent during the administration of the Conde de Chinchón as viceroy and was collected at that rate there until the cédula of July 26, 1776, raised it to six per cent. This rate was paid thereafter in the Spanish colonies (Recopilación, 8-13-1 to 14, notes, 2 and 4), except for an increase in the rate to 8 per cent in 1782, to meet the added expenses of war. The old rate of 6 per cent was restored in 1791 (transcripts of these cédulas exist in A. I., 87-1-20).

Exemptions from this tax were made in favor of churches, monasteries, and prelates when they bought or sold goods not for profit. When they engaged in commerce for its own sake they were obliged to pay the alcabala in the same way as laymen (Recopilación, 8-13-17). Goods belonging to the Santa Cruzada, provisions bought, sold or stored which were destined for the poor, and munitions of war paid no alcabala (ibid., 18-23). Indians were also exempted under certain circumstances (ibid., 24; see entire Title 13 of Book 8, Recopilación, for further specifications regarding the payment of this tax). In 1568 Philip II exempted the Philippines for thirty years. As noted above, the alcabala was not introduced regularly into the Indies until 1574, though it was levied in individual cases as early as 1558. Even earlier than this Pizarro had obtained the right to levy it in Perú for a period of a hundred years (ibid., 8-13-1; note 1), but Philip II ordered it paid in the Philippines on August 9, 1589 (ibid., 9-45-66).

The almojarifazgo, like the alcabala, had been utilized early in the history of the Peninsula and because a productive source of revenue, it was introduced into the Indies. The earliest law dealing with this tax in New Spain was promulgated by Charles V on October 18, 1553, exempting cargoes which had already paid the tax in Spain. On June 24, 1566, and on December 28, 1568, Philip II ordered a five per cent export tax on all goods leaving Seville for the Indies (the ordinance of December 28, 1562, having fixed it at two and a half per cent) and an import tax in the Indies on these same goods of ten per cent, making in all a tax of fifteen per cent. Wine was to pay a ten per cent import and export tax respectively, making a total of twenty per cent paid on that commodity (ibid., 8-15-1, 2, 8). The law of April 21, 1574, ordered a two and a half export and a five per cent import tax on goods shipped between colonies (ibid., 10). On August 9, 1589, a three per cent almojarifazgo was authorized in the Philippines, with exemptions on provisions, munitions, and other specified articles brought to the Islands by the Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, and Borneans (ibid., 22, 24). The tax on Chinese merchandise was raised from three to six per cent on November 20, 1606 (ibid., 23). Chinese goods from the Philippines paid a ten per cent almojarifazgo at Acapulco. This tax was also paid on leaving the Philippines or other New Spain ports and on entrance at Acapulco (ibid., 21). For exemptions see Recopilación, 8-15-26 to 30.

[67] Rivera to the King, February 16, 1582, A. I., 1-1-2/24.

[68] A legal defender of the Indians was wanted in this case to serve them in the courts. The bishop, at this time, was protector of the Indians and in that capacity had protested against the abuses of the encomenderos. The bishop, of course, could not enter the courts and defend the Indians in litigation.

The law of March 17, 1593, which ultimately established a defender of the Indians in Manila, filled the need voiced by Rivera. The law referred to read as follows: "The protection and defense of the Indians in the Philippines was entrusted by us to the bishops there, but having recognized that the latter cannot conform to the demands, autos and judicial summons which require their personal presence, we order that our president-governor shall name a protector and defender of the Indians, assigning to him a sufficient salary from the taxes levied pro rata upon the Indians who are under the royal jurisdiction and on private encomiendas, without touching the revenues of our royal hacienda which are for other purposes. And we declare that this does not signify that it is our intention to deprive the bishops of the superintendence and protection of the Indians in general" (Recopilación, 6-6-8).

Philip II, on January 10, 1589, restored the office of protector or defender of the Indians in the Indies generally. It was stated in this law that as a result of the earlier abolition of the office many inconveniences and injustices had arisen. The law authorized the appointment of a person of good character and morals to the office (ibid., 1). The reform of April 9, 1591, required that the appointee should be a lawyer, and that there should be a defender of the Indians attached to each audiencia (ibid., 3). The reform of March 11, 1784, provided that the fiscales should name these protectors in the future. (Ibid., note 1.)

[69] The Audiencia of Guadalajara was at that time subordinate to the Viceroy of New Spain in matters of war, government, and finance (hacienda). Ibid., 2-15-47, 49 to 54.

[70] Rivera to the King, June 26, 1583, A. I., 1-1-2/24.

[71] Foundation of the Audiencia, Blair and Robertson, V, 274-318; VI, 35-43; also in A. I., 1-1-3/25, the latter being the original cédula, signed by the king and ministers.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Permission had been granted by Philip II on July 4, 1570, to enslave Mindanaos. A second cédula permitting the Spaniards in the Philippines to do this was promulgated by Philip III on May 29, 1620. This act was rendered justifiable in the eyes of the Spaniards by the fact that they were dealing with semi-savages who were of the Mohammedan faith, and accordingly the ceaseless enemies of the Spaniards. Recopilación, 6-2-12.

[74] Recopilación, 3-10-13, 14; see Chapter VIII of this book.

[75] Recopilación, 2-15-55, promulgated November 4, 1606; see also 6-18-5 and 5-3-24.

[76] Dávalos to the King, July 3, 1584, A. I., 67-6-18.

[77] Audiencia to the Council of the Indies, June 26, 1586, A. I., 67-6-18.

[78] The Recopilación is singularly indefinite regarding the rate or amount of tribute to be assessed in New Spain. Beyond the stipulation that tribute levied under the supervision of viceroys, presidents, and audiencias should be moderate and just, practically nothing is said as to the amount that should be collected (See cédulas of June 19, 1536, and September 29, 1555, Recopilación, 6-5-21), excepting certain increases as stipulated in the law of November 1, 1591 (ley 16).

According to the laws just cited, the rate was to be fixed by the officials mentioned above. By cédula of December 19, 1534, the oficiales reales were empowered to fix the rate of tribute (ibid., 28). Reductions in the rate of tribute were to be authorized by the fiscal and oficiales reales (ibid., 29). Apparently the rate varied according to the locality (ibid., 1 to 5, 16, 17), and in the cédulas of 1536 and 1555, cited above, consideration was given to the rate formerly paid by the Indians to their caciques. Fonseca y Urrutia (Historia de la real hacienda, I, 417 et seq.) tell us that the tribute paid in the province of Tlascala in 1572 was 13 reales; in 1564 the rate for New Spain was fixed at two pesos, and in 1600 it was reduced to one peso of eight reales. (Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 586-9.) Humboldt (Political Essay, II, 431-2) states that there had been a gradual diminution of tribute paid by the Indians during the hundred years preceding his visit. In 1601, he states, Indians paid 32 reales tribute and 4 reales additional, de servicio, in all, about 23 francs. It had been reduced, little by little, till the amount actually paid was from 5 to 15 francs, and, "in the greater part of Mexico," he states, "the head-tax amounts to 11 francs."

Archbishop Benavides, of Manila, writing in 1600 (Zulueta Papers, date and place number not given) pleaded for the abolition of the tribute in the Philippines, stating that while the collection of tribute in New Spain was justifiable because the natives had been accustomed to paying tribute before the Spaniards came, the custom was entirely new in the Philippines, since the native princes had never levied tribute. On the other hand, various persons writing from the Philippines at different times urged that the tribute there should be increased to the rate imposed in New Spain.

The money value of the tribute in the Philippines was fixed at eight reales by Legaspi. It could be paid either in gold or in kind. De Morga tells us that the encomenderos made great profit by receiving the payment in rice, cotton, cloth, fowls, and other commodities, at a cheap rate, selling those same articles later to the improvident natives at greatly increased prices (Morga's Sucesos, Blair and Robertson, XVI, 159). When Dasmariñas arrived as governor in 1590, the tribute was raised from eight to ten reales (cédula of August 9, 1589, Recopilación, 6-5-65, also A. I., 105-2-11). While the eight reales were to be appropriated by the encomenderos, the additional two reales were to be distributed between the religious and military governments in proportions of one-half to one and a half (Blair and Robertson, XVI, 160).

In the instructions of May 23, 1593, to Governor Dasmariñas, reference was made to a current rate of eight reales (ibid., IX, 249), so it would seem that the local rate had been reduced from ten to eight reales at some date between 1589 and 1593. On February 16, 1602, the rate was restored at ten reales (Recopilación, 6-5-65), and was so continued until a subsequent regulation made optional on the part of the natives the payment of the ten reales or four reales and a fowl. On August 19, 1623, Fray Juan de Balmaseda complained that the encomenderos were making the natives pay ten reales in addition to the fowl and that the above law was thus resulting in the payment of sixteen reales tribute (A. I., 68-1-63). Accordingly, on November 21, 1625, a cédula was issued which eliminated the substitution of the fowl, and the rate was restored at ten reales, payable in gold or silver (A. I., 105-2-1). The king, in response to complaints against the collection of tributes in the provinces of Camarines and Albay, issued a cédula on September 25, 1697, ordering the observance in the Philippines of Book 6, Title 5, of the Recopilación de Indias, which meant the correction of the abuse above referred to (A. I., 68-4-12). It would seem that the rate of ten reales was levied throughout the seventeenth century.

[79] Audiencia to the Council of the Indies, June 26, 1586, A. I., 67-6-18.

[80] Dávalos to the King, June 20, 1585, A. I., 67-6-18.

[81] Pereyra to Santiago de Vera, July 10, 1597, A. I., 68-1-33.

[82] This involves the real patronato, which will be dealt with in