The Salcedo affair and the succeeding events make it clear that neither the authority of the audiencia nor of the Inquisition was unlimited. The fear and respect with which the latter inst.i.tution was regarded contributed to its momentary triumph. The audiencia did not interfere with or seek to restrain the acts of the commissary; indeed, the tribunal connived at the exile of the vicepatron since the oidores expected to profit from the act. During these three years the Inquisition allied itself practically to every interest in the colony which had been opposed to the governor. The royal interests were for a time forgotten and wholly unchampioned, owing to the weakness of the audiencia, the removal of the governor, and the united front presented by the ecclesiastical element. This condition was altered by the arrival of a new governor who bore evidence of the disapprobation of the superior government. The tribunal of Mexico discountenanced the acts of its former representative, and that disapproval was further emphasized by the adverse att.i.tude of the Council of the Indies. The audiencia was restored to its proper position, and, in conjunction with the vicepatron, it resumed its status as the agent of the royal will. So it may be a.s.serted that the supremacy of both authorities was relative, recognition depending partially on local circ.u.mstances and ultimately on the att.i.tude of the superior government. In fact, it may be said that the latter was the deciding factor. In the struggle itself, before the decision of the home authorities was rendered, the preponderance of power was enjoyed by the Inquisition. This was owing to the advantages which law and precedent had given to it as a privileged ecclesiastical tribunal, although the efficacy of the Inquisition lay for the most part in the immunities which were extended to it and in its swift, unexpected and secret methods. Its ultimate defeat on this occasion, and the continued abuse of its power, did much to detract from its prestige and authority in the Philippines. [872]

During the eighteenth century considerable authority over the Inquisition was given to the civil courts. The former position of supremacy, wherein its authority could not be so much as questioned by a secular tribunal, was gone forever. On August 2, 1748, a decree was promulgated whereby chanceries, audiencias, and corregidores were authorized to restrain any inquisitorial tribunal from maltreating its own prisoners. [873] This same law provided for the punishment by the civil courts of inquisitors who contravened this law. This was the first regulation which really gave to the audiencia the power necessary to restrain the acts of the Inquisition. We find no indication of any such liberal legislation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but by the time this law was promulgated, the power of the church in Spain was considerably reduced and that of the Inquisition was already on the decline. By a number of subsequent laws the Inquisition was gradually but surely limited in power and authority. We have already noted that on August 10, 1788, jurisdiction over the crime of polygamy and over cases involving the infraction of the marriage relation was taken from the Inquisition and given to the civil courts. [874]

By the cedula of December 12, 1807, authority was given to the royal justices to receive inquisitors, inspect their t.i.tles and to a.s.sign them to their districts, a.s.sisting them in all possible ways. The civil authorities were ordered to guard against an excessive number of these functionaries. The magistrates were especially instructed to act as guardians of the royal prerogative in dealing with the representative of the Inquisition and to report to the superior government on their relations with them. By this cedula the authority of the inquisitorial agents was distinctly limited to matters of faith, with appeal to the tribunal of the Inquisition. The magistrates were ordered to see that these instructions were followed. [875] In this way the civil authorities, and particularly the magistrates of the audiencias, became the guardians of the royal prerogative against the agents of the Inquisition, who were kept within the proper bounds of a purely religious jurisdiction.

It would be desirable, did time and s.p.a.ce allow it, to ill.u.s.trate further the jurisdiction of the audiencia over ecclesiastical affairs by showing in detail the part which the tribunal played in the friar lands litigation [876] and in the disputes over ecclesiastical visitation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the Philippines. It will be sufficient here to state that the government sought at irregular intervals and with varying degrees of success, to make the orders prove t.i.tles to lands in the same manner that was required of other corporations and individuals. [877] The audiencia, as a tribunal, and the individual magistrates as special commissioners, partic.i.p.ated judicially in the examination of these t.i.tles and in the correction of the abuses which were discovered. The oidores, when serving as special magistrates for the verification of these t.i.tles, officiated in a double capacity. By the very nature of the services rendered they were judges. They were also agents of the royal patron and as such they represented the person of the king, ascertaining whether the royal rights had been usurped or infringed upon.

Closely similar to the jurisdiction of the audiencia as a court of final resort in the testing of the t.i.tles to lands occupied by religious orders was that which it exercised in the matter of ecclesiastical visitation. This was a question of a more thoroughly religious character which did not concern the civil government as intimately as did the matter of friar lands. In general, it may be said that the audiencia was utilized by both sides in the various disputes which arose in connection with ecclesiastical visitation. During the ecclesiastical administrations of Archbishops Salazar, Serrano, Poblete, Camacho, Pardo and Justa y Rufina, practically until the end of the eighteenth century, this question was continually agitated. These archbishops attempted to visit and inspect the curacies which were held by friars in lieu of secular priests. [878] The archbishops relied on the audiencia for a.s.sistance in the enforcement of their claims and the friars sought its protection as a court of justice to shield them from the visitation of the prelate. As in the matter of the friar lands, so in this question, the audiencia acted both as a tribunal of justice and as an agent and champion of the royal patronage. Indeed, the laws of the Indies established the audiencia as a tribunal and as a compelling authority for the enforcement of ecclesiastical visitation. [879] The archbishop was directed to appeal to the audiencia or vicepatron for a.s.sistance in the subjection of offending curates, [880] but he was forbidden to visit the regulars in their convents, [881] which, of course, did not prevent his visiting them when in charge of curacies. On the other hand, the audiencia was forbidden to entertain appeals on the ground of fuerza from regulars who objected to the visitation of the prelates. [882]

Local conditions in the Philippines did much toward determining the character of the support rendered by the audiencia both to the archbishops and to the friars. During the later months of the Pardo controversy, when the audiencia had been demoralized by the triumph of the archbishop and the visitor, Valdivia, the decision of the tribunal had but little weight and the prelate did as he wished in regard to the matter of visitation. In Camacho's time, when the friars were on the point of leaving the Islands rather than submit to visitation, the audiencia and the governor wisely counseled moderation and completely abandoned the obstinate prelate. During Anda's term of office the question was again taken up, but the effort to enforce the principle was abandoned because the government could not find seculars, either Spanish or native, to take the place of the friars who threatened to leave the Islands if visitation were insisted upon. The magistrates likewise rendered invaluable service in imparting legal advice to the vicepatron, friars and others interested. They also kept the court informed as to what was actually transpiring in the colony. It may be seen, therefore, that the audiencia partic.i.p.ated in two important ways in the enforcement of episcopal visitation. It was primarily a court; it acted as agent of the royal patron. In these capacities the influence of the tribunal was greatest. It also exercised functions of an advisory character in aiding the authorities concerned to ascertain their rights according to the existing law. [883]

In summarizing the results of the investigation with which this chapter has been concerned, it may be said that the audiencia const.i.tuted a court of appeal in ecclesiastical cases wherein the services of an impartial, non-ecclesiastical tribunal were required, or wherein the defense of the royal jurisdiction against the aggression of the churchmen was involved. In defending the civil government from ecclesiastical usurpation the audiencia acted in defense of the royal patronage. Nevertheless, in the cases noted, namely, in settling disputes between orders, between the secular church and the orders, between either of these and the civil government, in entertaining recursos de fuerza, in restraining the interdict, and the abuses of the Inquisition, the audiencia acted by judicial process as a tribunal of justice, and not in the capacity of an administrative committee or an executive agent, as in the cases which have been heretofore described.