Chapter XI: , of this volume (4)

Each order, also, had its own judicial machinery for the settlement of cases arising within it. The courts of the orders were presided over by their provincials, generals and commissaries, and were composed of those dignitaries and other magistrates selected in accordance with their own rules. Special investigators or visitors were also delegated to try cases arising within the orders, and to make inspections, ascertaining the general character of the work of the orders, the conduct of their dignitaries and the regularity of their administration.

[810] Moses, South America on the eve of emancipation, 126.

[811] Carta de Fr. Francisco de Laudín ... al Consejo de Indias, 20 de Enero, 1668, A. I., 68-1-44.

[812] Recopilación, 1-7-54; 2-15-150; 3-1-4; Escriche, Diccionario, II, 453.

[813] Recopilación, 1-10-1, 2.

[814] Escriche, Diccionario, II, 453.

[815] Recopilación, 1-10-4, 6, 7, 12; 1-7-12.

[816] Ibid., 11.

[817] Ibid., 2-15-153; 1-10-13; 3-1-3.

[818] As an example of this we may refer to the work of the Augustinians in bringing to the light of judicial scrutiny the abuses of certain encomenderos against the Indians of Mindanao. This was in 1581, before the audiencia was established. The offending encomenderos were brought to Manila and tried by Bishop Salazar, who temporarily deprived them of their holdings and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines (Governor to the King [day and month not given], A. I., 67-6-6).

[819] The opposition of Salazar to what he termed the encroachment of the civil jurisdiction was based on the assumption that the royal patronage did not extend to tribes which lived in an uncivilized and savage state. He contended that the pope had not conceded this, consequently, as bishop, he had entire jurisdiction without interference from the audiencia or governor over the Mohammedans (as he termed all non-Christians) and the Chinese (A. I., 1-1-3/25).

[820] Cabildo de Manila to the King, A. I, 68-1-35.

[821] Fajardo to Felipe III, August 15, 1620, Blair and Robertson, XIX, 155. The pendulum seems, however, to have swung in the other direction at times. In 1604, the audiencia was charged with having tried members of religious orders in absentia without giving them a chance to summon witnesses or otherwise to defend themselves (King to Audiencia, October 30, 1604, A. I., 105-2-1). That the audiencia did not always have power to discipline the friars for infractions of the royal laws in 1626, is attested by the case of an Augustinian who led an assault on an alcalde mayor in Batangas, destroyed his house, maltreated his person, and, in the presence of the natives, publicly accomplished his disgrace. The king demanded from the audiencia a statement of all the facts of the case so that he and the Council might take proper steps for the punishment of the offending religious and the protection of His Majesty's servants in the future (King to Audiencia, May 21, 1623, A. I., 105-2-1). The audiencia conducted an investigation and forwarded the papers relative to the case to the court for final action. See Chapter X, note 35.

[822] Blair and Robertson, XXVIII, 314-15; see XLI, 22-25, 134, 231-4, 239, 255.

[823] Montero y Vidal, Historia general, 283-284.

[824] Letter of Fray Miguel de Solano, May 7, 1753, A. I., 67-6-4.

[825] Orellana to Carlos II, February 24, 1683, Blair and Robertson, XXXVIII, 81-85.

[826] Concepción, Historia general, IX, 107. There are records of many suits of this character throughout the history of Juan de la Concepción. The original documents relating thereto are to be found in A. I., 105-3-1 to 10. See also A. I., 67-6-3, 67-6-9 to 11.

[827] See note 3 of this chapter.

[828] Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, V, 807.

[829] Recopilación, 1-10-10; 2-15-136.

[830] Alzar or quitar la fuerza was the act on the part of a royal tribunal of abrogating, annulling, or reforming the effects of violence committed by an ecclesiastical judge.--Escriche, Diccionario, I, 839.

[831] Recopilación, 2-15-134, 135.

[832] Ibid., 2-15-143.

[833] Ibid., 144.

[834] Ibid., 152 and 142.

[835] Ibid., 2-2-4.

[836] Escriche, Diccionario, I, 712.

[837] Recopilación, 2-15-148: See expediente on affairs in the Philippines, 1690, A. I., 67-6-3.

[838] Ibid., 1-7-47.

[839] Ibid., 2-15-149.

[840] Ibid., 1-10-9.

[841] Ibid., 10; 2-15-136.

[842] This is discussed in the preceding chapter.

[843] A. I., 1-1-3/25; Blair and Robertson, VIII, 275-281; X, 79, 245-275.

[844] Ronquillo to the King, July 12, 1599, A. I., 67-6-6, cited in the preceding chapter.

[845] Cédula of November 13, 1626, A. I., 105-2-1; for cases of the excommunication of viceroys and oidores and other matters relating to the Inquisition in Perú and in New Spain see Lea, The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies, 191-298, 319-451.

[846] Corcuera to Felipe IV, September 25, 1623, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 104-107.

[847] Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 268.

[848] Relation of 1635-1636, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 39-40; see also Corcuera to Felipe IV, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 60-127; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 195-196.

[849] Montero y Vidal, op. cit., I, 193-197.

[850] The Inquisition, as represented by one commissary and three alternates (who were usually bishops) was established in the Philippines on March 1, 1583. The commissary of the Inquisition had for his special field all questions of faith and heresy, clearing away the errors and superstitions against the dogma and the lax opinions which pervert Christian morals (Pérez y López, Teatro, XXVIII, 208). The Inquisitor of the Philippines was instructed, on his arrival, to present his papers "to the ecclesiastical and lay chapters in order that they might receive him and recognize him in so high and holy an office." The Inquisition was represented continuously in the Philippines until 1813. With the introduction of this dignitary may be noted the presence in the Philippines of at least five authorities with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The ordinary ecclesiastical tribunals dealt with contentions within the Church. The papal delegate tried cases which had been appealed from these ecclesiastical courts. The regular orders had their own particular tribunals for the rule and discipline of their members and the audiencia exercised such ecclesiastical jurisdiction as we have noted in this chapter. There may be slight wonder, therefore, in view of the presence of so many ecclesiastical tribunals with similar powers, that there were frequent conflicts of authority.

[851] Recopilación, 1-19-1.

[852] Law of May 22, 1610, Recopilación, 1-19-2.

[853] The authorized proceeding in such a case was to appeal to the General Council of the Inquisition, which held its sessions at the court. This tribunal was authorized to nullify or reverse any harmful act or decision which the ordinary inquisitors might resolve upon. (Cédula of March 10, 1553, Recopilación, 1-19-4).

[854] Recopilación, 1-19-18, 19.

[855] Ibid., 16.

[856] Ibid., 21 and 22.

[857] Ibid., 3-15-78.

[858] "When a case may be tried indistinctly either by an ecclesiastical or lay judge it is said that the case is of the fuero mixto and then either of the two judges may take up the case, but the judge who begins it must be the last to try it" (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 832-833).

[859] See note to Recopilación, 1-19-4.

[860] Le Gentil, II, 172. Recopilación, 6-1-35.

[861] Audiencia to the King, July 20, 1585, A. I., 67-6-18. On June 26, 1586, the audiencia recommended the discontinuance of the Inquisition in the Philippines on the ground that it had been utilized "as a citadel for the shelter of those desirous of resisting the royal authority" (Audiencia to the King, A. I., 68-1-33). Archbishop Santibañez, on the other hand, was desirous of converting the inquisitorial authority into a tribunal to consist of two ecclesiastics and one oidor. He argued that the distance from Mexico made procedure cumbersome, and it was manifestly unjust that residents of the Philippines should be judged by a foreign court (referring to the tribunal in Mexico.--Santibañez to Philip II, June 24, 1598, Blair and Robertson, X, 151). These same sentiments were expressed sixty years later by Francisco Bello, procurator at Madrid for the religious orders. The Council of the Indies returned the petition which had been submitted by this last-named ecclesiastic, to the Viceroy of New Spain, and to the Audiencia and Archbishop of Manila, respectively, for their advice. The consensus of opinion was against the idea of creating a tribunal in Manila, partially on account of the expense. It was also shown that such a reform would have meant a loss of power to the viceroyalty of New Spain, and by the adoption of such a suggestion there would be created a powerful tribunal which would seriously inconvenience the authority and supremacy of the audiencia and the archbishop at Manila (Consulta of the Council of the Indies, March 15, 1659, A. I., 67-6-22).

[862] Cited already in various connections, particularly in Chapters II and X of this treatise.

[863] In the Philippines, archbishops were frequently able to combine the functions and offices of metropolitan prelate and commissary of the Inquisition. This gave greater pre-eminence to the archbishop and made the situation more difficult for the civil authorities. We have already noted an illustration of this in the case of Archbishop Pardo (1683-1689). Being also commissary of the Inquisition, he refused to grant absolution to ex-Governor Vargas, claiming that his authority as sole inquisitor was not sufficient to justify such action on his part without first receiving advice from the tribunal in Mexico.

[864] Lea, in his well-known work on The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies says that "while this branch of the Inquisition (referring to that in the Philippines) accomplished so little for the faith, it was eminently successful in the function of contributing to the disorder and confusion which so disastrously affected Spanish colonial administration" (p. 308). For a more detailed account of this episode see Cunningham, "The inquisition in the Philippines: the Salcedo affair," in The Catholic historical review, III, 417-445.

[865] The leading church historians of the Philippines--Martínez de Zúñiga, Salazar, Fonseca and Concepción--were naturally unfavorable to Salcedo in their accounts of the events of his administration. All agree, however, that Salcedo was a man of energy and precision, who, at the beginning of his rule, gave promise of universal satisfaction. The correspondence of the civil officials who were contemporaneous with the governor, and the letters of Salcedo himself show that his chief concern was the enforcement of the laws and the elimination of the ecclesiastical and commercial graft with which the administration of the government of the Philippines was permeated on his arrival in the Islands (Letters of Coloma, Bónifaz, Montemayor, León, and the Municipal Cabildo, 1670-1, A. I., 67-6-3; see also note to Ventura del Arco Mss., in Blair and Robertson, XXXVII, 262).

Zúñiga, however, states that Salcedo's commercial reforms were only intended for the benefit of himself and his friends, and that he reserved the chief articles of trade for himself, leaving only second-rate and spoiled goods for the merchants. This same historian states that the governor arranged for the early departure of the galleon on one occasion, with his goods on board, leaving those of the majority of the merchants unshipped (Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 307-308). Fonseca charges him with avarice, maintaining that all classes of society in Manila were disgusted with the governor's commercial transactions and were shocked at his exile of the archbishop. This historian relates that "the magistracy, the army, the merchants, arts and industries, ... all raised their voices against the badly directed government of Salcedo, determining to over-turn him; representative citizens of Manila petitioned the audiencia, asking that it deprive him of the government, ... and the royal acuerdo determined to do so, but at the last moment the judges disagreed over the question of whose signature should precede the others; this question remained in litigation, and blocked the action of the royal acuerdo" (Fonseca, Historia de la provincia de santissimo Rosario. Libro V, Capítulo VIII, quoted in Sobre una reseña histórica, 92). Concepción, the Augustinian historian, confirms the above, and gives a more clarifying reason for the failure of the audiencia to oust the governor--namely, that the latter was sharing his commercial profits with the magistrates, thereby purchasing their favors; the oidores were therefore reluctant to take action against the governor (Concepción, Historia general, VII, 137-138, 162-200).

[866] Salcedo was charged with plotting to sell the Islands to the Dutch and with surrounding himself with Flemings, one of whom was a Calvinist. It was alleged that he had already sent large sums of money to Macao, including a large part of the funds in the Manila treasury, and that he was preparing to depart in person. It was said moreover that he intended to return in command of a Dutch squadron and capture the colony for Holland. It is evident that there was no lack of charges against Salcedo (The original correspondence and consultas of the various tribunals which considered the charges against Salcedo may be noted in A. I., 67-6-3. See Blair and Robertson, XXXVII, 37-60, Lea, The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies, 299-318, and the ecclesiastical authorities mentioned in the preceding note).

Dr. Pardo de Tavera, in his account of the arrest of Governor Salcedo, says that "in 1668, Governor Salcedo had some difference with (the friars) ... and the archbishop and as a result, the latter decided to avenge themselves, plotting with the military officials, regidores and merchants to bring him before the Inquisition. They made a conspiracy and, one night while the governor slept, the conspirators, among whom were the provincial of the Franciscans, the guardián of the convent of that order in Manila, and various other ecclesiastics, entered his room, surprising him while he slept, and placed him in irons. He was thus taken to the convent of the Franciscans, but considering the latter insecure, they carried him to that of San Augustín, loading him with a heavy chain" (Pardo de Tavera, Reseña Histórica, 37). After a period of imprisonment in Manila, Salcedo was ordered to Mexico for trial by the tribunal of the Inquisition, as the local authority was without authority to take further action in the matter. Salcedo never reached his destination, however, as he died at sea. This was subsequently the fate of Paternina, the inquisitor who was responsible for his disgrace.

[867] That Governor León had a trying position to fill may be believed by his description of affairs as he found them in Manila, and of his struggles to restore the royal authority to its proper status. He gave a full account of "the excessive presumption of the commissary of the Inquisition in the arrest of Don Diego Salcedo, my (his) predecessor, and his interference in matters wherein he had no real jurisdiction." León reported having prevailed upon the royal audiencia to order the commissary to refrain from meddling in affairs which did not concern the Inquisition. The ways of the Inquisition he described as "dark and secret;" it was "a danger and a fearful power," a "monster, feared by all," working, not in the light of day, but insidiously, constituting a sinister power whose strength was not fully realized (León to Council, June 10, 1671, and July 4, 1672; Consulta of the Council of the Indies, July 16, 1674, A. I., 67-6-3).

[868] Audiencia to the King, June 15, 1671, A. I., 67-6-10.

[869] Consulta of the Council, August 12, 1672, A. I., 67-6-10.

[870] Montero y Vidal, I, 356.

[871] Acuerdo of August 24, 1672, A. I., 67-6-10.

[872] While the Salcedo affair accurately depicts the power which the Inquisition assumed on a particular occasion, the episode cannot be said to illustrate its power and influence throughout the history of the Islands. Indeed, never on any former or subsequent occasion did the Inquisition constitute such a menace to the state. It was generally prevented from exercising too much power in the Philippines by its own isolation. Represented by a single agent, who was not always on good terms with the other ecclesiastical authorities there, and who was thousands of miles from his immediate superior, the tribunal of Mexico, he was confronted and opposed by the combined civil, secular and monastic powers. Owing to these circumstances, the commissary of the Inquisition in the Philippines could not, single-handed and unaided, constitute a long-continued danger to the commonwealth.

[873] Reales resoluciones no recopiladas, Pérez y López, Teatro, XXVIII, 207.

[874] Recopilación, 1-19, note 2.

[875] Ibid., note 1. This tendency culminated in the decree of February 22, 1813, which suppressed the Supreme Tribunal of the Inquisition and renewed the jurisdiction of bishops and vicars over cases involving the faith, as had been the practice before the Inquisition was instituted. All property belonging to the Inquisition reverted to the crown. Soon after the restoration of Ferdinand VII the Inquisition was revived, against the will of that monarch, it is said, but it was again abolished by the decrees of March 9, 1820, and July 1, 1835.

As a result of the suppression of the Tribunal of the Inquisition on March 9, 1820, and the transfer of its authority over matters of faith to the vicars and bishops, Escriche says that "in the exercise of their jurisdiction some of these prelates exceeded their authority and established in their respective dioceses juntas de fé, which turned out to be in reality inquisitorial tribunals with practically the same authority which former tribunals had exercised. They inflicted corporal and spiritual punishments and guarded in their ministry the most inviolable secrecy." As soon as reports of this unexpected assumption of authority came to the notice of the government, Ferdinand hastened to order the suppression of these self-constituted tribunals, without immediate success, however. Escriche tells us that they continued their excesses for some time, "depriving accused persons of the means of defense, keeping from them the names of persons testifying against them," flagrantly disregarding the dispositions of the brief of Pius VII, dated October 5, 1829, in prohibition of exactly these abuses. On February 6, 1830, a cédula was expedited which authorized appeals in cases of this nature until three conforming decisions were rendered. The decree of July 1, 1835, abolished these tribunals, ordering the prelates to exercise jurisdiction with appeal to the Department of Grace and Justice (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 773).

[876] The author has treated this subject in a separate monograph entitled "The origin of the friar lands question in the Philippines," in The American political science review, X, 463-480.

[877] The friar lands litigation began in 1687 and continued until 1751. The efforts of the government met with considerable opposition. The oidores who were charged with the inspection of the titles to these lands frequently abandoned their commissions and recommended that the friars be left alone. However, in the year last mentioned, the opposition of the Franciscans, the last of the resisting orders, was overcome (Correspondence regarding friar lands exists in A. I., 68-4-12 and 68-6-26). See also the Camacho Controversy, Blair and Robertson, XLII, 25-116; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 385, et seq.; Concepción, Historia general, VIII, 192-206; Philippine Census, I, 342-343; Sobre una reseña histórica by the Dominicans of Manila, 65-89.

[878] "In America [and in the Philippines] the monks were given a somewhat unusual position. According to the canon law they were not able to hold beneficed curacies, but the extent of the American field, and the limited number of the clergy available to occupy it, induced Leo X, Adrian VI, Paul III, Clement VIII, and Pius V to permit them to become parish priests. Under this order a very large number of these parishes in America in the first century were occupied by friars. But in the middle of the eighteenth century, this privilege was withdrawn, leaving them only two friars in a conventual province" (Moses, South America on the eve of emancipation, 138-139).

[879] See Cunningham, "The question of ecclesiastical visitation in the Philippines," in The Pacific Ocean in history, 223-237.

[880] Recopilación, 1-15-28.

[881] Ibid., 29.

[882] Ibid., 31.

[883] Valuable materials, for the most part original, on the visitation controversy may be found in Blair and Robertson, XXIV, 247; XXIX, 191; XLII, 25-116; XX, 87; XXI, 32-78; XXXVII, 193-200. See also A. I., 69-1-29, 68-4-16, 106-4-21, 105-2-9, 106-4-31. Montero y Vidal (Historia general, I, 86-87, 295, 398; II, 134-138, 257 et seq.) presents a good secondary account of the subject.

[884] This legajo list was obtained from the index of the collection of manuscripts in the section known as Audiencia de Filipinas, of the Archive of the Indies in Seville. The aim is only to present legajos which contain material on the audiencia. A more complete list covering all the Philippine material in this depository may be found in Blair and Robertson, LIII.

[885] The above system of reference to documents in the Archive of the Indies is used universally, and it has been employed consistently in this treatise. The manuscripts are wrapped and tied in bundles (legajos), which, in turn, are to be found in large cases (estantes), and the shelves (cajones) of the cases are numbered. The meaning of the above reference therefore is Estante 68, Cajón 6, Legajo 3, indicating that legajo number 3 is to be found on Shelf 6 of Case 68 of the Archive. A legajo contains in the neighborhood of 2,000 pages of hand-written manuscript. The documents may be originals, certified copies or ordinary drafts or duplicates. They are supposed to be grouped according to subject-matter, and usually the materials in a given cajón deal with a phase of the same question. Legajos in a given cajón and manuscripts in a given legajo, roughly speaking, are arranged chronologically, though in many cases they have lost their original order owing to careless handling. This description is sufficient to identify any document to which this classification is applied, as these numbers are not duplicated, though often the documents are, and copies of the same manuscript may be found in different cajones.