Chapter III · THE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AUDIENCIA

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1710—51 cases ... report dated December 11, 1711; A. I., 105–2–9.

1774—34 cases ... report dated December 25, 1776; ibid.

1776—48 cases ... report dated March, 1778; ibid.

1779—53 cases ... report dated July 30, 1780; ibid.

1786—99 cases ... report dated May 1, 1778; A. I., 105–2–10.

1789—51 cases ... report dated June 4, 1790; A. I., 105–2–10.

1795—38 cases ... report dated April 4, 1798; A. I., 105–2–10.

1822—641 cases ... report dated July 3, 1823; A. I., 106–4–21.