Note 6 — Chapter XI · THE AUDIENCIA AND THE CHURCH: THE ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION

A clarifying description of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction has been given by Escriche. He defines it as “the power of the Church for the trial and adjudication of civil and criminal affairs exercised either by its own right or by concession of princes.” This jurisdiction, says Escriche, is of two kinds, inherent (spiritual) and privileged (temporal). After classifying the different cases which fall naturally under each category, he describes the tribunals for the interpretation of canon law. “The ecclesiastical jurisdiction,” he writes, “the inherent, as well as the privileged, is exercised, in first instance, by the bishops and archbishops in their respective dioceses, in the second, by the metropolitan with respect to the suffragans, and in the third, by the papal delegate. The bishops and archbishops do not exercise the jurisdiction by themselves but by means of their provisores or vicarios. These latter may be either generales or foráneos.... The term provisor or vicar-general is used to designate him who exercises the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the entire territory of the diocese and resides in the episcopal city situated therein; ... foráneos are the others established as delegates in certain parts of the diocese in order to facilitate the administration of justice; no appointments to these offices may be made without the royal approbation. The authority of the provisores and vicarios cease by death of the prelate from whom they obtained the nomination, and is reassumed by the cabildo or chapter, sede vacante, which selects persons to succeed them” (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 453).

Escriche further describes this hierarchy of ecclesiastical judges: “The metropolitans, then, are the ordinary judges of first instance with regard to the archbishoprics and at the same time they are the judges of appeal from the suffragans, and, accordingly, they are accustomed to appoint, aside from the provisores or vicarios, ordinarios who discharge the functions of judges of first instance. As the obispos exentos are not subject to a metropolitan, but directly to the holy see, recourses of appeals from their decisions go to the papal delegate.” The cases of appeal from the metropolitans and other ecclesiastical judges were heard in third and last instance by the tribunal known as the rota of the papal delegate, which was composed of the nuncio of the pope, and the ecclesiastical auditors appointed by the crown.

The ecclesiastical courts of the Philippines conformed generally, in organization and limits of jurisdiction, to the scheme outlined in the preceding paragraphs. The three bishops of Nueva Segovia, Camarines, and Cebú had their courts in the chief towns of their respective dioceses. They were assisted by the customary provisores. Appeals were carried from them to the court of the metropolitan which was located in Manila; this latter tribunal consisted of the archbishop, the vicar-general, and a notary. Above this court was that of the papal delegate who tried cases of appeal from the lower tribunal in accordance with canon law. In conformity with a bull of Gregory XIII, dated May 15, 1572, the authority of the papal delegate in appeal cases was final; “he might overrule and even supersede the metropolitan, as being the judge in final appeal.” The Bishop of Camarines most frequently acted as papal delegate (Blair and Robertson, XLII, 27, Note 4). Aside from these courts there was that of the commissary of the Inquisition whose jurisdiction will be subsequently noted.

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.