A detailed survey of the governor's residencia in the Philippines would ill.u.s.trate the influence of the audiencia in such investigations. Unfortunately the story would be long and little s.p.a.ce remains for such a purpose. During the first two centuries of Spanish rule in the Islands the residencias of the governors were especially stringent, many of these officials suffering deprivation of office, imprisonment, and exile. The families and dependents of some were reduced to the last extreme of poverty, while the victims themselves spent years in some distant province, unable to defend themselves from their enemies. Many victims of the residencia were purposely put aside in order that no appeal could be heard from them. One would occasionally find relief at last in a tardy pardon or in a modification of sentence, obtained through friends at home, when these could be reached, but more often death would intervene before the exercise of executive clemency or revision of sentence could be obtained.

The factors of petty spite, malice, and personal ambition entered to an extensive degree in the rendering of testimony at a residencia. A governor, recently arrived in the colony, would be full of zeal and ardor to inaugurate a successful administration, and make a good record for himself. The first duty that presented itself on his arrival was that of taking or supervising his predecessor's residencia. Frequently, before arriving at Manila, the new governor would be in full possession of a complete record of the misdeeds of his predecessor, and the residencia of the latter was as good as taken. [253] Oidores, merchants, alcaldes, treasury officials, and churchmen, compelled to stand aside and see a governor take his choice out of the best things, leaving for them only the husks, were not slow in bringing charges at the official residencia. [254] A new governor, desirous of demonstrating his intention of starting an honest and vigorous administration, hearing nothing but evil of his predecessor, would naturally lend himself as an instrument to the malcontents. A fiscal, after spending six years in conflict with a governor, could be depended on to bring strenuous prosecution against him. A magistrate with enmity in his heart for the governor whose residencia he was to take, was no fit person to conduct an impartial investigation.

While as a rule the residencias of governors were severe, due largely to the presence of the audiencia, that of Dr. Sande, the first governor to submit to this investigation, ill.u.s.trates the evils of the residencia as conducted before the establishment of the audiencia. His successor, Governor Ronquillo de Penalosa, conducted Sande's residencia and sentenced him to pay a heavy fine, but he appealed the case to the Audiencia of Mexico, by which tribunal, in the meantime, he had been commissioned oidor. We have noted in an earlier chapter Ronquillo's comments on the abject state into which the administration of justice had fallen when a man could be promoted to a magistracy in a tribunal which had jurisdiction over his own case on appeal. [255] However, after the establishment of the audiencia, and until the close of the nineteenth century, the residencia went to the other extreme, and was, as a rule, exceedingly rigorous.

We may briefly note a few of the most severe residencias in which the influence of the audiencia told against the victim. In 1625, Geronimo de Silva, temporary governor, was imprisoned by the audiencia because he failed to pursue the Dutch after their defeat in 1617. The real difficulty lay in the fact that Silva had incurred the enmity of the senior oidor, who ultimately conducted the residencia, because Silva's arrival in the Islands deprived that magistrate of the command of the military and naval forces of the Islands. Again, Governor Corcuera, after nine years of very successful rule, during which he distinguished himself in several campaigns of conquest and incidentally aroused the hostility and jealousy of the oidores, was arrested on charges made by the audiencia on the arrival of Governor Diego Fajardo in 1644. An oidor, who was the personal enemy of Corcuera, was designated to conduct the residencia, the ex-governor was fined 25,000 pesos and was imprisoned five years while the magistrates of the audiencia delayed the transmission of the papers which permitted a rehearing of the case. At last his defense was sent to the Council, the fine was remitted, he was given salary for the period of his exile, and the post of governor of the Canaries was conferred upon him. Although the audiencia was responsible for the injustice in this case, Fajardo, as president and governor, was held answerable in his own residencia for his conduct toward his predecessor.

Governor Simon de Anda y Salazar, one of the most successful governors the Islands had ever known, was made to suffer from the personal malice of the oidores when he gave his last residencia in 1776. [256] Among the offenses which were proved against him was that of exercising prejudice in conducting the residencia of Oidor Villacorta, conducted under his supervision. The residencia had been rigorous, due no doubt to personal enmity between the oidor and the governor, extending over a period of many years. He was also fined 4000 pesos as a price for his excessive zeal in the prosecution of the residencia of his predecessor, Governor Raon, who had friends in the audiencia to defend his memory and champion his cause. [257] Anda was also shown to have absolved certain officials of real hacienda of financial responsibility, permitting them to leave the Islands without the consent of the audiencia. These and other charges proved against him were said to have caused his premature death in 1776.

Governor Jose Basco y Vargas, another very efficient governor, [258] but one who had been opposed throughout his term of office by the audiencia, was heavily fined in 1787 by the oidor designated to conduct the investigation. The decision of the judge of residencia was reversed by the Council of the Indies, however, and Vargas' exceptional merits were recognized to the extent of his being appointed to the governorship of Cartagena, with the rank of rear admiral. In taking the residencia of Vargas, the audiencia had disagreed so completely that the tribunal was obliged to resort to the extreme measure of appointing a churchman as arbiter. Fray Geronimo Caraballo, the curate of Quiapo, was designated for that duty.

Aside from the above brief references to notable cases in which the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over the residencias of governors, allowing itself to be influenced by considerations other than those of justice, it seems desirable to review in detail at least one case of the residencia of a governor, to show more particularly just what authority was exercised by the tribunal, and just how that authority was exercised.

We may select for this purpose the residencia of Governor Felix Beringuer de Marquina, which was the last to be conducted under the old laws, and the last, accordingly, of the severe residencias. [259]

As governor and superintendent of real hacienda Marquina a.s.sumed such power as no other governor had ever exercised. He was opposed at every turn by the audiencia and probably no other governor ever had so many of his measures vetoed or opposed by the home government as he. The fiscal and oidores brought many charges against him; these finally culminated, before the expiration of his term, in the royal order of February 19, 1792, for the taking of his residencia. The regent, Agustin de Amparan, was put in possession of the special charges which had been made against Marquina. According to these the governor had been careless in defending the Islands against the Moros, who had insulted and robbed with impunity the various settlements, with no effort having been made to check their advance. The governor had transgressed in numerous instances the sphere of the audiencia and had subst.i.tuted his own authority. He was said to have been guilty of immoral relations with certain Spanish women of the colony, having deliberately and maliciously separated an intendant from his wife on one occasion by ordering the former to a post of duty where no woman could go; he had ama.s.sed a great fortune through trade and by diverting the proceeds of the royal revenue to his own private advantage; he had permitted merchants to conduct business without proper licenses; he had allowed foreign merchants to remain in Manila under conditions forbidden by law. [260] These and many others were the charges brought against Governor Marquina. They may be considered as typical of the accusations which were usually brought against governors in their residencias.

Amparan was commanded by the royal order above-mentioned to remove Marquina to some spot outside Manila where he could not interfere with the residencia, but whence he could be summoned at any time, to give testimony in his own behalf. [261] The regent was instructed to ascertain from the treasury officials whether Marquina should not be required to post more than the usual amount of bonds in view of the grave charges against him. It seems that the law already cited requiring an annual deduction of one-fifth of the governor's salary to cover residencia had been abrogated by a royal order dated February 13, 1782; hence there was some apprehension lest Marquina had not deposited sufficient money. [262]

In compliance with these orders Marquina was relieved of his office in September, 1792, and was sent to Laguna de Bay, about thirty miles from Manila. After five months' delay, the investigation was inaugurated and it was concluded by July 22, 1793, but Aguilar, the new governor, intervened and suspended the sentence on the ground that Marquina had not been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Up to this time Marquina had not testified directly. Aguilar ordered that the ex-governor should be brought to Manila and that a lawyer should be appointed for his defense. This was done and the charges which had been made against him were duly answered. This evidence could not be incorporated in the official papers of residencia, for they had been finished and closed by the regent, but it was forwarded to Spain under separate cover. [263]

The official papers of Marquina's residencia, as formulated by the regent of the audiencia, arrived before the Council of the Indies in due time, together with Marquina's defense which had been sent separately. The glaring injustice of the investigation as conducted by Amparan and of the official evidence transmitted, was patent to the fiscal of the Council. He refused to receive any testimony not incorporated in the official papers of the case. Marquina was allowed a retrial by the Council. This resulted in a further delay of three years; during this period Marquina remained in the provinces with the exception of the time spent in Manila giving testimony in his second residencia, which was taken under the direct supervision of Governor Aguilar. Immediately after his second trial Marquina was transferred to Mexico, but he was obliged to deposit an additional 50,000 pesos before his departure from Manila.

In the ultimate judgment Marquina was p.r.o.nounced guilty of many offenses in addition to those mentioned in the charges previously outlined. He had shown favoritism in the dispensation of official favors; he had authorized the expenditure of public money for private ends; he had neglected defense and agriculture; he had been negligent in the supervision of the various departments of real hacienda and particularly of tobacco; he had infringed on the jurisdiction of the royal audiencia. He had indulged in private trade and had granted special favors to foreign merchants. [264]

The regent fined him 40,000 pesos outright and, moreover, he was condemned to pay into the royal treasury an additional fine of 16,000 pesos to cover certain illegitimate profits made through granting unlawful trading concessions to an Armenian merchant. This sentence was not executed immediately, as it had to be confirmed by the Council of the Indies. On review of the findings and recommendations of the regent, the Council declared that since the proceedings at the trial of Marquina had been irregular and the governor had already suffered the consequences of his own misdeeds, the fine imposed by the judge of the residencia in Manila might be reduced to 2000 pesos with costs of trial. Marquina on October 12, 1797, asked to be excused from the payment of the 2000 pesos, but the Council denied his pet.i.tion, declaring that he had been treated with great consideration and mercy and that nothing more could be done in his behalf, especially since he had not been adjudged innocent of the charges which had been made against him. [265]

Marquina's trial ill.u.s.trates all the characteristics, the delays, terrors, and ramifications of a typical residencia of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Continued complaints against him caused Marquina's residencia to be taken before the expiration of his official term. The regent of the audiencia was commissioned by the court to conduct the investigation because Marquina's successor had not arrived. That magistrate was prejudiced against Marquina on account of having witnessed the governor's continual malfeasance in office. He was unable to conduct an impartial investigation, and the audiencia, likewise prejudiced, would not intervene in behalf of the ex-governor. The wrongs done to Marquina in his trial were so patent that the Council of the Indies ordered a new hearing. A severe sentence was finally pa.s.sed by the judge in Manila, but it was modified by the Council of the Indies through considerations of justice. The residencia occupied ten years, and during the greater part of that time the ex-governor remained in exile--a victim of his own misdeeds, the faulty residencia system, and the hostility of the audiencia. The customary severity of the residencia was only mitigated in this case by the presence of an impartial governor, who, unlike most governors whose desire was to hara.s.s their victims, sought to secure a fair trial for his predecessor. To accomplish this he was obliged to work against, rather than in co-operation with the audiencia.

The above method of conducting residencias of governors, presidents, viceroys, and superintendents was modified, as already mentioned, by the reform of August 24, 1799. The new law provided that the court, instead of the new governor, should appoint the examining judge. The latter was no longer empowered to p.r.o.nounce sentence of any sort. He was only to conduct the investigation in the future, remitting the autos of the case to the Council of the Indies for final determination and sentence. [266] Again, on March 16, 1797, the royal order of December 30, 1777, was re-enacted and the practice was revived of deducting annually one-fifth of the salaries of officials whose incomes were 8000 pesos a year or more. [267]

This law was again promulgated on January 18, 1848. Its purpose was to secure the retention of a sufficient sum of money to guarantee all losses incident to the residencia. It apparently continued in force until July 7, 1860, when governors and captains-general were declared exempt from these discounts. [268]

We shall now examine more particularly the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the residencias of minor officials of the colony. It has already been pointed out that the residencias of provincial judges and governors, alcaldes ordinarios and reales oficiales were taken by judges appointed by the president of the audiencia, with appeal to the tribunal. These cases, under certain circ.u.mstances, might be taken on second appeal to the Council of the Indies. The practice in these investigations may be best understood by noting the development of the law regarding them, for, as we have already noted, the residencia was the product of years of administrative experience, during which various methods were tried, and rejected or adopted as they were found respectively inadvisable or efficacious.

The earliest cedula on the subject, that of November 17, 1526, ordered that the audiencia should try all appeals from judges of residencia, wherein the amount involved did not exceed 600 pesos. A law of Philip II, dated 1563, forbade viceroys, presidents, and audiencias from sending judges of residencia or other investigators against judges of provinces, unless complaint had been lodged against those officials by a person willing to post bonds and pay the costs in case the charges proved to be false. [269]

The cedula of September 3, 1565, laid down the principle that the residencias of officers appointed by viceroys and presidents should be taken by commission of those who appointed them. [270] As regularly appointed corregidores and alcaldes mayores held royal commissions, [271] they did not, according to this law, give residencia to judges appointed by the governor. The Council of the Indies, therefore, should name judges to investigate the official conduct of its own appointees. As a matter of fact, however, the Council delegated this authority to the governor and audiencia. This latter practice was authorized by a clause in the cedula of September 3, 1565, which provided that residencias of the officials referred to should be taken under supervision of the audiencias in the districts wherein the officials resided. This meant that while the audiencia was not to interfere in the taking of the residencia itself, the tribunal was to see that the laws regarding residencias were faithfully executed. The law of March 11, 1591, ordered that if the conduct of corregidores, alcaldes mayores, and other magistrates demanded that their residencias should be taken before the completion of their term of office, the viceroys, presidents, or governors should appoint judges for the purpose. [272] Nothing was said in this cedula relative to the authority of the audiencia in this matter, but the law of January 19, 1608, gave to the audiencia the right to try residencia cases on appeal from the sentences of these special judges.

The laws of June 3 and June 19, 1620, provided that the governor and audiencia should decide in acuerdo whether the residencia of a gobernador, corregidor, or an alcalde mayor should be taken. Neither the governor nor the audiencia was to have complete authority in the matter, but each should partic.i.p.ate, the audiencia a.s.sisting in the decision as to whether the case merited investigation and the governor making out the commission and appointing the judge if an investigation were necessary. The audiencia, alone, was authorized to appoint judges of residencia for judicial officers only. [273]

The interference of the audiencia in the residencias of governors, corregidores, alcaldes mayores, and other justices and ministers provided by royal appointment was definitely forbidden by the cedula of April 20, 1639, as this jurisdiction was declared to belong to the Council of the Indies. [274] Although we have evidence that the Council did exercise such jurisdiction, it was always on review of cases appealed from the audiencias. While the above prohibition forbade the audiencia from taking the residencias of these officials it did not restrain the tribunal from partic.i.p.ating in the decision as to whether a residencia should be taken, or in the review of the autos of residencia.

An ill.u.s.tration of the intervention of the Council of the Indies in residencias of alcaldes mayores is shown in the case of Josef Tormento, alcalde of Caragara. On June 6, 1786, he was sentenced in residencia to a pecuniary penalty, perpetual deprivation of office, and two years' exile from Manila. This sentence was confirmed in review by the audiencia on October 8 of the same year. The Council modified this sentence, however, approving the fine, but cancelling the other provisions. [275] In 1803 the inc.u.mbent of the same post, Antonio Mateo, was incarcerated by order of the audiencia, pending investigation of the charge made against him that he had used the funds of his office for private trade. It was shown, however, that this official knew the location of a quicksilver deposit of great value, whereupon the governor had him removed from prison, ordering the suspension of the charges against him, notwithstanding the protests of the oidores. The fiscal concurred in the action of the governor. The audiencia appealed the case to the Council of the Indies, alleging conspiracy between the governor and the fiscal. The Council, however, on examination of the case, approved their action, ordered the charges to be dismissed, and gave directions that the alcalde mayor should be restored to his former position or given another of equal category as soon as possible. [276]

Although the cedula of August 24, 1799, gave the audiencia the right to conduct the residencias of corregidores and alcaldes mayores, this case involved certain interesting features which should be pointed out in this connection. In the first place, it shows the manner in which the Council of the Indies exercised ultimate authority in matters of residencia. Again, it reveals the influence which the fiscal and even the governor might have in determining whether suit should be brought, [277] and finally it indicates that expediency might const.i.tute an important factor in the ultimate results of a case of this kind.

The practice of granting jurisdiction over the residencia of an official to the authority that appointed him seems to have been followed repeatedly. This principle was enunciated in the cedula of August 20, 1758, but on August 8, 1764, a royal decree authorized viceroys and presidents to name judges of residencia for all officials holding royal appointments, with the condition that the autos should be forwarded to the Council of the Indies. This law was repealed on April 23, 1769. [278]

The cedula of August 24, 1799, which has been mentioned several times in this chapter, was a reform of the greatest importance in the history of the residencia. Prior to its promulgation, all officials had to give residencia, but this law abolished that universal requirement. It provided that residencias of corregidores, alcaldes mayores, and subdelegate-intendants should be taken only when charges had been made against them. This might occur at any time during their term of office, or at the close of their service. These investigations had to be concluded within four months, but if charges were not made against an official his past record was not investigated.

The length of time consumed in all residencias except those of viceroys was limited to four months. The period allotted for these investigations was divided into two parts. [279] During the first half, edicts or notices of residencia were posted throughout the district of the official concerned. These were printed in Spanish and in the common dialect, so that natives and others concerned might read and know that the official was giving up his post and that charges might be brought against him, setting forth any misconduct, undue harshness, tyranny or dishonesty of which he had been guilty during his term of office. These notices invited them to register any complaints which they might wish to make and gave them sixty days in which to do it. At the close of this period the judge of residencia opened an investigation in the town wherein the official under examination had resided, usually the capital of the province. The actual trial of residencia might consume sixty days, or it might be perfunctory in its character and occupy a much shorter period, the entire question of time depending on the amount of evidence presented against the retiring official. On the other hand, as we have seen, the residencia of a governor might occupy ten years.

If the judge were taking a residencia in the provinces he was frequently delayed in arriving at his post of duty, owing to the pressure of other business, or to the uncertainty of transportation facilities. In that event, he could not open the judicial investigation until the allotted period had almost transpired.

In the trial, two distinct lines of investigation were usually pursued: charges which had been made against the official were investigated and the records of his office were examined. The discovery was frequently made through this procedure that the official had embezzled money belonging to the government, usually investing it in private ventures. The inquiry might show that he had been careless in the execution of the duties of his office, remiss in his attention to encomiendas, particularly neglecting the Indians thereon, or too ignorant and incompetent to try properly, record, and transmit the autos of the cases which had come to him in first instance. These defects might not become apparent until they were revealed in this examination.

The judge of residencia would seem to have been well occupied during the time that he was conducting the investigation. He received and reviewed all charges made. In addition to auditing the records of the office, he had to pursue inquiries as to the truth of these charges. He examined witnesses both for and against the defendant, and was supposed to give the official under investigation every opportunity to defend himself. He was relieved, however, of the trouble and responsibility of checking up the financial accounts of the official under residencia. This important matter was turned over to the treasury officials, who ascertained shortages, and held the bondsmen of the official under investigation responsible. [280] The judges of residencia, and the oidores making investigations and reviewing cases of residencia were ordered to confine their examinations to "criminal and legal matters and charges which result against those under residencia." [281]

After all the evidence had been taken and the case had been duly tried, the judge of residencia was authorized to render sentence. Sentences were executed by the examining judge if the penalty did not exceed twenty-five thousand maravedis. The latter cases were not appealable. If the fine were less than two hundred ducats and the defendant desired to appeal, he was obliged to pay the fine or deposit the amount thereof. His case would then be reviewed by the audiencia and in order to effect this, notice of appeal had to be submitted in sufficient time to permit the record of the entire case to be reduced to writing. If, on review, the audiencia found that the defendant was not guilty of the charges which had been brought against him, the money taken as a fine or deposit was restored. If the amount of the fine exceeded two hundred ducats, or if the defendant had been convicted of serious crimes, the judge was authorized to take the proper and necessary steps for the detention of the prisoner and the seizure of his property pending a new trial in the higher tribunal. [282] Cases involving more than one thousand pesos could be carried to the Council of the Indies.

A thoroughly typical case, ill.u.s.trating all of the ramifications of a provincial official's residencia, was that of Francisco Fernandez Zendera, alcalde mayor and military captain of the province of Ilocos. [283] It was investigated first by a judge appointed by the acuerdo, it was reviewed by the audiencia and it was finally carried to the Council of the Indies. It was characteristic in another sense, namely, in that twelve years pa.s.sed before the matter was settled.

After Zendera had occupied his post three years, complaints against him were brought to the attention of the fiscal. In his capacity as prosecuting official and as protector of the Indians, he made a motion before the audiencia in acuerdo, that a judge of residencia should be sent to conduct an investigation of Zendera's official conduct. The following charges against Zendera had been sent to the governor, and on the basis of these, the fiscal, governor, and audiencia decided to conduct the investigation: First, Zendera had compelled natives to work for him on his own estates, building houses, granaries, fences, tilling the soil and planting crops, from two hundred to three hundred men having worked for him continually, without pay or food; second, the arbitrary methods of this alcalde mayor left the natives without money with which to buy their food or to pay their tribute; third, not only were the men forced to labor, but the women were obliged to sew, spin and embroider without pay, and the product of their labor was confiscated by the alcalde mayor.

The audiencia and the governor, in acuerdo, having taken note of these charges, commissioned Angel Moguel, chief secretary of the government, to conduct the residencia of the alcalde. Moguel was put in possession of the necessary doc.u.ments and departed at once for Vigan, the head city of the province. On November 7, 1782, he posted notices to the effect that Zendera's residencia was to be taken, calling on the residents to make formal charges against him. Moguel suspended Zendera from office and accepted 20,000 pesos from two of his friends as bonds to cover the residencia, this sum offsetting the valuation of the properties for which Zendera was responsible. These were additional to other bonds which Zendera had posted on his accession to office.

For some una.s.signed reason, only twenty-five days were allowed for the filing of complaints, but during this time eighty-eight charges were made, most of which were variations of those mentioned above. Zendera was said to have been uncompromising in his administration of justice; he had imposed excessive fines; he had imprisoned the natives without giving them opportunities for defense; he had refused to allow them to appeal their cases. [284] Not being a lawyer, he lacked sufficient qualifications for the proper conduct of trials; moreover he had refused to employ a teniente or asesor. He had failed to supervise and enforce the instruction of Spanish, and he had done nothing to a.s.sist in the education of the natives. Zendera was charged with having suppressed all commerce except his own, going so far as to arrest merchants of other provinces who came to Ilocos to trade. This he had done to secure his own monopoly in commercial matters. He had, moreover, suppressed the trade of the Ilocanos with the Igorrotes. He had failed to segregate the men from the women in the provincial prison. It was said that he had neglected to publish the governor's edicts (bandos) from Manila. He had shown partiality to Spanish priests in preference to the native clergy. He was charged with having taken rice as tribute at a low price, turning it over to the treasury officials at a higher rate, thereby making great profits for himself.

Zendera was found guilty of almost every charge made against him. The sentence of residencia was p.r.o.nounced by the judge commissioned for the purpose on August 13, 1782. The defendant was fined 8000 pesos and sentenced to deprivation of office for a period of eight years. [285]

The audiencia, in turn, reviewed the case, and that tribunal, on May 20, 1783, finding the autos of the case incomplete, ordered Moguel back to Vigan for a second time to complete the investigation. The judgment of residencia after this second investigation was made was the same as before, and the case was carried to the Council of the Indies on November 7, 1785. It seems that in this case the audiencia was somewhat slow in granting the appeal, for on February 19, 1788, a cedula was expedited which ordered the audiencia to forward all the autos in its possession bearing on the case. The final judgment of the Council of the Indies was rendered March 23, 1794. The fine of 8000 pesos was reduced to 3000 pesos, and the portion of the sentence which had ordered a deprivation of office was remitted altogether. [286]

The cedula of August 24, 1799, already referred to, greatly altered the applicability of the residencias to provincial as well as insular officials. Its greatest importance was due to the fact that it authorized investigations of corregidores, alcaldes mayores, and sub-delegate intendants only when charges were made against them; otherwise it was a.s.sumed that their official conduct had been satisfactory, and accordingly no residencias were held. Before the officials could be transferred to other posts they were obliged to show certificates of clearance from former positions. The audiencia was given final jurisdiction over the residencias of these officials, with inhibition of appeal. At the same time the tribunal was denied jurisdiction in any instance over the residencias of viceroys, captains-general, presidents, governors, treasury officials, oidores, and intendants. [287] After the suppression of the Council of the Indies on March 24, 1834, the latter cases were finished in the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, and that tribunal continued to exercise this jurisdiction till the close of the nineteenth century. [288]

The cedula above referred to abolished the residencias of tenientes letrados, alcaldes ordinarios, regidores, clerks, procurators, syndics, alguaciles, and other minor officials. In place of the formal investigation and judgment after the term of office was completed, the audiencia was given more complete control over their official acts, with the duty of seeing that justice was administered, jails inspected and kept clean, prisoners given a speedy trial and not molested with undue exactions, and the police supervised. The tribunal was also empowered to see that the ayuntamientos conducted their elections impartially and that the munic.i.p.al officials executed their duties faithfully. In this way the formal investigation at the close of the term of these minor officials was replaced by a more efficient supervision of their acts by the audiencia. The const.i.tutional reforms of the early nineteenth century gave to the audiencia original jurisdiction over the trial of judges of first instance, with appeal to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. This authority was suppressed in 1815, and continued so until 1835, when it was restored to the audiencias of the colonies.

Although the reform of August 24, 1799, recognized the residencias of alcaldes mayores, tenientes, and corregidores, merely transferring jurisdiction over these to the audiencias, it would seem that this investigation retained less of its former severity from this time onwards. In fact, some authorities infer that the residencia was abolished after 1799. [289] This was not the case, however, as the residencia was recognized by laws promulgated as lately as 1870. [290]

The audiencia also had jurisdiction over the residencias of galleon officials. These had to submit to residencia at the termination of each voyage. An oidor was designated by the governor for the inspection of the ship, for the examination of its papers, for the consideration of complaints against the officers of ill-treatment of pa.s.sengers and crews during the voyage. [291] An investigation was conducted on the occasion of the loss of a ship. Then a thorough inquiry was made in an endeavor to discover negligence on the part of the admiral, general, or other officials. The exercise of a similar authority over cases involving the loss of galleons has been discussed in the preceding chapter.

In pursuance of this authority, Magistrate Torralba was commissioned in 1710 to take the residencia of the officers of the galleon "Nuestra Senora del Rosario y San Vicente Ferrer", which was wrecked in the Straits of San Bernardino on the voyage from Acapulco in 1709. [292]

As great diligence had been shown by them in landing the treasure and sending it overland, the matter was dropped. A similar investigation was conducted in 1743 in the case of the galleon "Cobadonga", which was captured by the British. The charge was made that neither the "Cobadonga" nor her convoy, "El Pilar", had offered any resistance, and that the latter had deserted the galleon and had taken refuge in flight. [293] The officers were arrested and thrown into prison on charges brought by the fiscal, but they were cleared in the investigation which proved that the ships were not in a condition to fight.

The various laws and cases which have been cited in this chapter show that the trial of residencia of captains-general, treasury officials, oidores, intendants, alcaldes mayores, and alcaldes ordinarios was a judicial function over which the audiencia had a large share of authority. It is safe to say that no residencia was ever taken in the Philippines, after the audiencia had been established there, in which that tribunal did not exercise some degree of authority. As the laws and regulations of the residencia varied at different times, the extent of the jurisdiction of the audiencia in this matter was not always the same. The audiencia either a.s.sisted in the examination of the charges or in the designation of the judge. The magistrate selected was usually an oidor. Oidores were liable to designation to conduct inquiries, and the audiencia, as a tribunal, tried these cases in review. The tribunal exercised supervision over the work of the investigating judge. The case was either finished in the audiencia, or reviewed there and appealed to the Council of the Indies through the action of the audiencia. The Council of the Indies was the supreme arbiter in all cases, prior to 1799. Subsequently the Council, or the Supreme Tribunal of Justice after 1834, retained final jurisdiction over the residencias of the higher officials only. In the residencias of provincial or local officials the jurisdiction of the audiencia was final.

CHAPTER V

THE SEMI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE AUDIENCIA.

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 a.s.signed 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 uncla.s.sified matter came up for solution, it was usually a.s.signed 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 laws of the Indies empowered the president of the audiencia to designate oidores to serve on these commissions. Additional compensation and travelling expenses were given for these extra services. [294] The president was forbidden to send magistrates on commissions to places outside the district of the audiencia, which, of course, would have been impossible in the Philippines. Appointment to some of these commissions was considered by the magistrates as highly desirable. Frequent disagreements arose over these appointments, and the king was obliged to issue pacificatory cedulas, from time to time, to allay the discord and strife which arose over the appointments to the more lucrative of these places. The principle was laid down repeatedly that special commissions should be a.s.signed fairly among the ministers, and that in their distribution only the apt.i.tude of the magistrates for the particular tasks should be considered. [295]

The term of service for these special posts was a year. No change was allowed in the inc.u.mbency of a particular commission unless on account of death, sickness, or removal for incompetency. Appointments to these extra duties were made in the royal name, and appointees were obliged to make reports to the court on the termination of the commission held. Magistrates were held responsible for their service in this capacity in their residencias. In large audiencias such as Mexico, Lima, and Buenos Ayres in the eighteenth century, many commissions of this character were served by regular commissioners who held no other posts, but in the smaller colonies such as the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, they were held by oidores when the duties connected with the commissions did not entail sufficient work to occupy all the time of the appointee.