← Table of contents
The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies

Chapter V · THE SEMI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE AUDIENCIA.

Reading edition

Aside from the activities which have been described, the magistrates of the audiencia rendered important services in various administrative capacities. From the beginning until the end of the eighteenth century the oidores were assigned to special commissions or judgeships with jurisdiction over such miscellaneous secular and ecclesiastical matters as did not come readily under any other department or authority. In practically all cases these functions involved the oidores in their individual capacities rather than as magistrates of a tribunal of justice. Though their work was independent of the audiencia, their decisions were reviewed in the audiencia in many cases. In short, it may be said that when any unforeseen or unclassified matter came up for solution, it was usually assigned to a magistrate of the audiencia.

The exercise of these extra functions was especially characteristic of the history of the audiencia down to 1785, when the reforms of the intendancy were introduced throughout the Spanish colonial empire. These important reforms grouped these administrative functions about a central head, the superintendent, and lessened the duties of the oidores in these matters, confining the magistrates more particularly to judicial duties. It may be said, however, that the oidores exercised these extra functions practically till the end of the eighteenth century, which period comprised the greater part of the existence of the colonial audiencia.

The audiencia exercised supervision over certain matters of church finance. These included tithes, the funds of temporalities, and of certain charitable societies, and jurisdiction over the adjustment of estates and properties left by deceased prelates. In connection with the latter was the duty of auditing the accounts of benefices which were subject to the royal patronage whenever a transfer of occupants was made. These matters, though miscellaneous in their character, and accordingly pertinent here, may be reserved for a subsequent chapter which will be dedicated to a discussion of the relations of the audiencia and the Church.

This law conceded that oidores might serve when other magistrates were not available.

As soon as Governor Marquina assumed office, he relieved the magistrates of the audiencia of all share in the administration of these monopolies, combining all these branches of real hacienda under the asesor above mentioned. On August 3, 1791, the audiencia protested against the acts of the governor, basing its claims to a continuance of authority on the cédula of March 20, 1790, by which the king had authorized the oidores to administer all the monopolies except tobacco.

The governor’s will prevailed, and the magistrates were deprived of the commissions which they had formerly held; these were given over to regular officials of real hacienda. Contentious cases, however, that did not pertain exclusively to finance were tried on appeal in the audiencia and that body exercised regular, but not special, jurisdiction in them thereafter.

One of the most important offices which the oidores were called on to perform was that of juez de difuntos. The duties of this office consisted largely in the administration of the funds and property of persons who died intestate, or without heirs in the colony. This work was entrusted to the colonial audiencia as a body in 1526, and any judge therein might be delegated from the tribunal for the adjustment of an estate.

This dispute, though brought for adjudication before the audiencia, was not settled by the tribunal. The evidence pertaining to the case was collected and referred to the Council on December 22, 1786. The cédula which finally disposed of the matter was issued May 4, 1794, in the following terms:

By this decree it was definitely established that the treasury officials should have precedence over the regular judges in the settlements of estates of officials and individuals against whom the royal treasury had claims. After the demands of the government were paid, those of private individuals might be settled, and it was ordered that the juez de difuntos, as the champion of individual claims, should always give precedence to the oficiales reales who represented the interests of the government.

The organization for the administration of these funds presented a complete hierarchy. The actions of the juez de difuntos were subject to review by the Audiencia of Manila. The funds from the Philippines were deducted from the subsidy at Acapulco, and forwarded to the Casa de Contratación of Seville (or the juez de arribadas at Cádiz, after 1790) by the juez de difuntos of Mexico. The heirs in Spain were then found, and the money transferred to them, less discounts covering costs of transmission to Spain. In case appeals were made from the decision or settlement of the juez de difuntos, the records of his proceedings in the case under consideration were reviewed by the Council of the Indies. The method of procedure there was to refer these documents and accounts to the Contaduría General, where all accounts for the Council were audited and settled, and the recommendations of that tribunal were accepted. The constitutional reforms of the nineteenth century gave the audiencia increased authority in the final settlement of these matters, and its decision was made final in practically all contentious cases, though, of course, final judgments involving heirs who were resident in Spain might still be appealed by them to the Council of the Indies or the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

Apart from the extra duties and commissions already noted, the audiencia was utilized for a variety of purposes which are too miscellaneous to be classified, but too important to be omitted from this discussion. Duplicates of executive orders relating to subjects far removed from the jurisdiction of the audiencia as a court, were sent to it, with instructions that the tribunal take note of numerous matters, such as seeing that the laws were properly executed, observing the effect of reforms, and reporting on their availability and adaptability at various times and places. Copies of new laws relating to civil and ecclesiastical affairs were sent to the audiencia for its information.

The audiencia was required to submit data regularly concerning the religious orders, showing the number of friars belonging to each order and designating the provinces that were held by each. The tribunal was often asked to make recommendations for the regulation of the religious. As we shall note in a subsequent chapter, one of the regular duties of the audiencia was to send in a yearly report on the number of religious arriving in or departing from the Islands. The tribunal had jurisdiction over the royal colleges and universities; it exercised supervision over courses of study and instruction given in them, and the oidores reported concerning these matters from time to time.

The audiencia kept the court informed as to the number of Spaniards in the Islands, the occupation of each, and his attitude toward the government. It reported on the number of Chinese and other foreigners in the Islands, the amount of tribute paid by the Chinese, and the extent of the Chinese trade. From time to time the magistrates were asked by the court to make special reports on these or other subjects. They were required to report from time to time on the number and services of the officials of the government, major and subordinate, whether they were all needed, the quality of their services, and what reforms could be made to effect greater economy and efficiency. The audiencia was especially charged with the duty of seeing that the provincial officials were not so numerous as to be a burden on the natives. The government realized that oppression of the Indians would result from the presence of too many Spaniards among them, and the effort was continually made to limit the number of these undesirables. The audiencia, in short, was the representative of the king in all these matters.

Besides the special duties of the oidores indicated in this chapter, there were others which will be described later in more detail. The residencia has been already treated. Other duties will be noted in connection with the relation of the audiencia and the governor. Some are more closely related to the religious and the ecclesiastical institutions of the colony, and merit special treatment in that connection. The audiencia, moreover, had extensive functions in relation to the commercial and economic life of the colony. A fuller comprehension of these numerous activities may be gained in the following chapters where they are discussed in connection with two of the most powerful factors in the colony’s life—the governor and the church.

Total property left 123,700 r.

Executor’s commission 741 r. 16 m.

Administration 1,237 r.

Expenses 123 r. 18 m.

Total deductions 2,102 r.

Balance to be distributed among heirs 121,598 r.

Two-thirds left to brother as per will 81,066 r.

One-third left to parents as per will 40,532 r.

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · Recopilación, 2–16–40; see also 7–1–15.Note 2 · Law of November 10, 1818, A. I., 106–4–19; see Real instrucción dada á los regentes de las audiencias, 20 de Junio de 1776, in Rodríguez SanNote 3 · A tax on silver, gold and other metals (as well as on pearls) mined in the Indies. This tax was first authorized on February 5, 1504 (RecopiNote 4 · Ibid., 2–16–19 to 22.Note 5 · Ibid., 23.Note 6 · Ibid., 24. This junta is to be distinguished from the real contaduría, which was composed of the oficiales reales. See Martínez de Zúñiga, ENote 7 · This was the junta superior de la real hacienda, created for Manila by the law of July 24, 1784. It was one of the reforms of the intendancyNote 8 · Recopilación, 2–16–34.Note 9 · Ibid., 2–15–169.Note 10 · Ibid., 2–31–1 to 3.Note 11 · Ibid., 8–19 (general subject of medias anatas). Holders of ecclesiastical benefices were subsequently obliged to pay the media anata, althouNote 12 · Ibid., 8–19–1 and 2.Note 13 · The cédula of July 3, 1664, reorganized the system of medias anatas, authorizing their division into two separate allotments, one payable atNote 14 · Cédula of December 14, 1776, A. I., 105–2–16.Note 15 · The extensive use of the betel-nut by the natives of the Philippines encouraged the Spanish government to monopolize its production and saleNote 16 · Juez conservador (civil), a judge named por privilegio del rey, with private jurisdiction over the civil affairs of some community or guild,Note 17 · Recopilación, 3–3–35.Note 18 · Report on the establishment of the Intendancy in Manila, December 5, 1785, A. I., 107–5–19.Note 19 · Testimonio and transcript of the royal cédula of November 23, 1787; King to Marquina, June 15, 1791, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 20 · The first intendant, Ciriaco Gonzales Carvajal, was given the title of intendente de guerra y real hacienda, by virtue of the cédulas of JulNote 21 · Recopilación, 3–3–35.Note 22 · Basco y Vargas to the King, May 9, 1786, A. I., 107–5–19.Note 23 · Cédula of March 20, 1790, A. I., 107–5–19.Note 24 · Recopilación, 3–3–35.Note 25 · Marquina to the Audiencia, August 16, 1791, A. I., 107–5–19.Note 26 · Recopilación, 3–3–35, cited in notes 21 and 24 of this chapter.Note 27 · Ibid., 2–32–1.Note 28 · Ibid., 7 and note; 8.Note 29 · Ibid., 43.Note 30 · Ibid., 42, note 4; 47, note 7. These cases may be noted in A. I., 68–4–12.Note 31 · Ibid., 44. The cédula of July 16, 1776, ordered the confiscation of property left by foreigners, forbidding that it should be sent outside oNote 32 · See Recopilación, 2–32–42.Note 33 · A case appealed to the Council of the Indies on June 4, 1806, involved the property of Antonio Rodríguez de la Peña, deceased. Rodríguez hadNote 34 · Recopilación, 2–32, note 7.Note 35 · Ibid., 10.Note 36 · Ibid., 32–33, 40, 60.Note 37 · Ibid., 16, 32, 33.Note 38 · Ibid., 16–18, 27–29, 31.Note 39 · Ibid., 46, and note.Note 40 · Ibid., 48–56, 59. The report to the Council of the Indies of Pedro Aparici, general superintendent of real hacienda, on July 8, 1805, shows Note 41 · Ibid., 60. See the articles on the Philippine situado by E. G. Bourne and James A. Leroy in the American historical review, X, 459–461, 929–Note 42 · Cédulas of November 26, 1776, September 9, 1778, October 13, 1780, June 12, 1783, February 17, 1786, A. I., 107–3–9.Note 43 · Aparici to the Council of the Indies, July 19, 1797, A. I., 107–3–9. An examination of a few typical accounts of this department will show tNote 44 · The last state galleon left Manila for Mexico in 1811, and the last ship sailed from Acapulco to Manila in 1815 (Foreman, Philippine IslandsNote 45 · Recopilación, 2–32–7.Note 46 · Villacorta to the Council of the Indies, July 6, 1757, A. I., 106–4–15. The evidence of this case also exists in A. I., 107–3–9, and is citeNote 47 · Marquina to the Council of the Indies, June 18, 1790, A. I., 107–5–18.Note 48 · Recopilación, 2–32, note 2.Note 49 · Ibid., 5–12–14. Basco y Vargas to the King, June 6, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.Note 50 · Cédulas of April 23, 1770, October 13, 1780, and May 4, 1794, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 51 · Recopilación, 2–32–28.Note 52 · Ibid., law 25.Note 53 · Cédula of May 4, 1794, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 54 · A. I., 106–4–17; 108–3–17; 105–2–10 to 32. See Bibliography under “Manuscripts used.”Note 55 · The author has at his disposal abundant data for each subject covering each decade and century, showing that the powers mentioned were charaNote 56 · A. I., 106–4–18.Note 57 · As noted in the preceding chapter.Note 58 · King to the Audiencia, August 8, 1609, A. I., 105–2–1.Note 59 · Marquina to the King, January 18, 1790, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 60 · King to the Regent of Manila, January 24, 1794, ibid.Note 61 · See, Plan económico del gobernador de Filipinas José Basco y Vargas, 1 de Septre, 1779, y carta que lo acompaña, No. 157, de 11 de Dicre de Note 62 · Memorial of July 20, 1757, A. I., 106–4–15.Note 63 · See Moses, South America on the eve of emancipation, 27–31, for an account of the festivities and formalities at the installation of the vicNote 64 · Recopilación, 1–24–1 to 15.Note 65 · Ibid., 1 and 2.Note 66 · Ibid., 3; 15. The cédula of October 10, 1752, gave to the audiencia the right to authorize the publication of legal treatises, ordinances anNote 67 · Ibid., 7 and 12.Note 68 · Ibid., 8.Note 69 · Ibid., 1 and 2.Note 70 · See Lea, The Inquisition in the Spanish dependencies, 70, 204, 265; 444–446.Note 71 · Acuerdo of January 26, 1816, A. I., 106–4–19.Note 72 · The constitutional reforms of 1812 included the separation of the governorship from the presidency of the audiencia. In 1814 the governor waNote 73 · Montero y Vidal, III, 30.Note 74 · Ibid., 251.Note 75 · Recopilación, 2–15–156 to 166.Note 76 · On the basis of this the governor compiled and sent to Spain a yearly report on the work of the magistrates, prosecutors, and subalterns of Note 77 · The laws of the Indies empowered the president of the audiencia to designate oidores to serve on these commissions. Additional compensation Note 78 · The most important and profitable commissions were awarded to the senior magistrate of the audiencia. He was charged permanently with the duNote 79 · An oidor was designated by the president to make periodical inspections in the provinces. This official had to attend to a variety of matterNote 80 · An oidor in the Philippines served as judge of medias anatas.11 These taxes were levied upon the salaries of all officials of royal appointmNote 81 · It has been pointed out already in this chapter that the effect of the reforms of the intendancy was to limit the jurisdiction of the oidoreNote 82 · when a case so urgent and extraordinary offers itself that an oidor must be appointed, warning is hereby given that ... the same magistrate Note 83 · Governor Marquina, superintendente subdelegado de real hacienda from 1789 to 1793, refused to permit oidores to serve as asesores of the monNote 84 · The oidores did not tamely submit to a deprivation of their posts as asesores on the occasion of the establishment of the intendancy. They cNote 85 · Basco y Vargas, in pursuance of this conception of his rights and duties, combined all of these asesorías under the direction of one office,Note 86 · On August 16, 1791, Governor Marquina answered the complaint of the audiencia in a memorial of his own, in which he set forth his position iNote 87 · The first law providing for a special administrator was proclaimed at Valladolid on April 16, 1550. It stated that many of the heirs of persNote 88 · In case the juez de difuntos should fail to execute his duties, or should exceed his powers, it was the duty of the fiscal to bring the abusNote 89 · As in other cases noted in this and in former chapters, so in the administration of the estates left by intestate decedents the laws seem toNote 90 · The cédula of September 28, 1797, was a codification and a reclassification of all previous laws on the subject of this jurisdiction. The prNote 91 · It would appear, then, that the oidor detailed as juez de difuntos had jurisdiction over cases of intestacy, over the settlement of propertyNote 92 · When the heirs were resident in Spain, or in some colony other than the Philippines, the estates of deceased persons were sold and the moneyNote 93 · Theoretically, the juez de difuntos, acting through the oficiales reales, sent such money as he had collected to the Casa de Contratación ofNote 94 · The juez de difuntos was frequently opposed in the exercise of his special jurisdiction by other officials of the colony. Many cases involviNote 95 · Probably the most notable case of conflict between the civil and military jurisdictions and one which involved the juez de difuntos occurredNote 96 · Other sources of frequent dispute were the respective claims of the juez de difuntos and the oficiales reales for jurisdiction over propertyNote 97 · Shortly after this decision had been rendered, the alcalde mayor of Tayabas died, leaving a deficit of 7000 pesos, and the officials of the Note 98 · It is indisputable that the ministers of our real hacienda are authorized to have jurisdiction over all debtors of my royal treasury ... witNote 99 · Aside from the activities of the magistrates as members of the juntas de hacienda, described earlier in this chapter, it would perhaps be saNote 100 · The above practices were never more prominently evident than during the constitutional reforms from 1810 to 1823.56 That period, of course, Note 101 · The conduct of officials was continually under the observation of the oidores, and special reports were frequently sent to the Council from Note 102 · The king, on August 9, 1609, wrote to the audiencia, asking for information concerning the truth of a certain report which had come to him rNote 103 · On several occasions the audiencia assumed the initiative, or assisted materially, in the accomplishment of various functions of an extraordNote 104 · In the cédula of November 26, 1765, we find another illustration of the extraordinary functions of the magistrates of the audiencia. The govNote 105 · The variety of the functions of the audiencia is well illustrated by a report made on July 20, 1757, in compliance with a royal order of inqNote 106 · The audiencia had general authority over the inspection and censorship of books which were printed in the colony or imported. This power wasNote 107 · In conformity with the above regulations, the Audiencia of Manila, on July 21, 1787, suppressed a book which had been written by the commissNote 108 · On January 26, 1816, the audiencia forbade the publication of any book without its express permission.71 As a result, considerable trouble aNote 109 · It has been noted already, in the cédula of October 9, 1812, and in subsequent reforms, that all matters of a contentious nature should be sNote 110 · Among other important functions of a non-judicial character was the audiencia’s duty of keeping the archives of the government. The tribunalNote 111 · Another illustration of the disposal of money left under slightly different circumstances may be noted in the Royal Order of February 14, 18
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings