The jurisdiction of the audiencia under the royal patronage extended to practically all classes of churchmen and church affairs.[23] By the cédulas of August 4, 1574, and of October 25, 1667, the audiencia acquired the right of passing on the credentials of prelates who came to the Islands. That tribunal was entrusted with the duty of seeing that bishops and archbishops carried with them the duly attested confirmation of the Council of the Indies, and no prelate was allowed to leave the Islands unless he had the permission of the governor or audiencia.[24] The tribunal exercised a check on the governor in this particular and saw to it that in granting this permission he did not show favoritism or otherwise violate the laws of the royal patronage.
Two striking illustrations of the audiencia’s jurisdiction over the inspection of the credentials of the prelates and higher churchmen occur in the history of the Philippines. In 1674, Francisco de Palóu, a French bishop who had been engaged in missionary work in China, was cast upon the shores of the Philippines. The audiencia immediately dispatched orders for his detention, and he was not permitted to return to his district on the ground that his presence and jurisdiction in China constituted an encroachment on the rights of Spain. China had been conceded to Spain by Alexander VI, and by virtue of the royal patronage, the right of making ecclesiastical appointments and the exercise of jurisdiction there were prerogatives belonging to the Spanish crown.[25]
A similar case occurred in 1704, when Archbishop Tourón, a French delegate destined for China, arrived in Manila. He was received by the governor and audiencia, as he bore a legally executed commission from the pope for the visitation of all the churches in the Orient, and for the settlement of all ecclesiastical controversies which had arisen there. The royal acuerdo considered that the dispatches and credentials which he carried were in accordance with the law. Tourón was accordingly permitted to set up an ecclesiastical court. He suspended Archbishop Camacho from his office and freed from prison some of the worst criminals in the Islands. He ordered the regulars to submit to diocesan visitation; but they refused to obey him since they had already rejected the efforts of the archbishop to enforce the principle. The Council of the Indies ultimately disapproved of the admission of this foreign ecclesiastic without the authorization of the Spanish government[26] and as a consequence ordered the removal of the governor and senior oidor, heavily fined the remaining magistrates and reduced Archbishop Camacho to the position of Bishop of Guadalajara.[27]
In its joint capacity as assistant to the vicepatron and as a high court with jurisdiction over ecclesiastical cases, the audiencia settled disputes between rival claimants to positions of authority in the church, particularly to the position of archbishop. The law which had been in force up to 1619 prescribed that the ecclesiastical chapter should fill the vacancy with a temporary incumbent, but some effort had already been made to have the senior bishop succeed to the post. Bishop Arce of Cebú was opposed to this plan on the ground that each prelate had more than he could do in the proper administration of his own bishopric.[28] Nevertheless it may be noted that on January 22, 1630, Arce was made acting archbishop of the metropolitan see of Manila by virtue of the acuerdo of the audiencia and the vicepatron.[29] Arce’s accession to the post was in accordance with a papal bull which had been promulgated with the king’s approval at some date between 1619 and 1630. There had been a three-cornered fight between the ecclesiastical chapter, the Bishop of Cebú, and the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, and this conflict had been settled by the acuerdo in favor of Arce, while the chapter appealed to the Council of the Indies. When Guerrero, the new appointee, arrived, he immediately laid claim to the office, which Arce refused to surrender on account of an irregularity in the archbishop’s appointment. Arce appealed to the audiencia, but the tribunal refused to authorize any innovations.[30] In a statement to the king, dated October 17, 1655, he related that in 1629 the governor and audiencia had solicited that he come to Manila and take the place vacated through the death of Archbishop Serrano. This would seem to indicate that the audiencia had acted solely on the basis of its authority derived from the royal patronage, but in settling the dispute among the various ecclesiastical authorities it also acted judicially. Guerrero’s credentials finally came, apparently executed in the proper form and they were referred to the audiencia by the governor. The tribunal, when it had satisfied itself that the commission was valid, placed thereon the stamp of its approval and accepted Guerrero as archbishop. Then the latter, in the words of Governor Corcuera, presented himself “in the royal court of justice (the audiencia) before which he appeared to be presented [to his see], he swore upon the gospels not to interfere with your Majesty’s jurisdiction, to respect your royal patronage, and to be always your royal vassal.”[31] In other words, he took his oath of office as archbishop in the audiencia.
The above may be considered as a typical case of the temporary designation of a prelate for the archbishopric of Manila by the audiencia. To cite further instances of a similar nature would be unnecessary. The tribunal continued to inspect the credentials of bishops and archbishops before they were admitted to their posts throughout the history of the Islands. This practice was followed even during the period from 1660 to 1762 when the church counted for more as a political institution than either the audiencia or the governor.[32]
The audiencia exercised intervention in the removal of curates from their parishes.[33] As noted, already, these removals were made by the vicepatron upon the recommendation of the prelate concerned. Of course, when the audiencia was governing ad interim it made these removals itself. It also intervened when the vicepatron was present on occasions when he requested the support of the tribunal or failed to act himself. The judicial authority of the audiencia, exercised through its entertainment of appeals from curates who had been removed, will be considered in the next chapter.
A great many reasons for removals were purely ecclesiastical, such as questions of the private lives and conduct of priests and friars and their insubordination and non-compliance with ecclesiastical or monastic rules. With these matters the audiencia did not concern itself unless deportation was involved, or the offenses of the priests constituted crimes against the civil government. There is record of many removals from curacies because of infractions of the marriage laws by priests, such, for instance, as uniting heathen Chinese with Christian women, which was a violation of the pragmatic law of March 23, 1776. Such cases, and indeed all which had to do with removals from curacies after 1795, were settled by ecclesiastical tribunals with appeal to the papal delegate, without the intervention of the audiencia.[34]
The operation of the removal of regulars for cause was slightly different. Unless the regular was the holder of a parish and subject to episcopal visitation, the prelate had no jurisdiction over him, and neither the governor nor the audiencia could interfere in the matter, unless such intervention was requested by the provincial.[35] When the deportation of regulars not holding curacies was decreed, the consent of the vicepatron or audiencia, acting for him, was necessary. This was usually given on the recommendation of the provincial, and the exile accordingly became an act of the civil government. The formal consent of the Council of the Indies was necessary for all deportations of this character, but the complete exercise of this prerogative gradually devolved upon the vicepatron, who notified the Council of the act.[36]
The crimes of priests or ecclesiastics against the law and order of the realm were punishable in the same manner and by the same agency as the simpler violations of ordinary subjects. Attention has already been given in another part of this treatise to a case in which the audiencia, in 1617, tried and punished six Augustinian friars who had been convicted of murder.[37] Their guilt was first ascertained by a preliminary investigation within the order, after which they were handed over to the audiencia.
The statement has been made above that the audiencia was not allowed to interfere in the internal régime of the convents or monasteries.[38] However, when the provincials of the orders were unable to keep the friars in subordination they frequently called upon the civil government for support and assistance. This was done in 1715 when the Castilian Recollects rebelled against their provincial, incorporated themselves into a separate chapter, and entrenched themselves in the convent at Bagumbayan, outside the Manila wall. Oidor Torralba, then acting as governor and vicepatron, came to the support of the provincial upon appeal. He cannonaded the recalcitrants, arresting and imprisoning them on their surrender, and finally banished their leaders.[39] On this same occasion, it may be noted, the provincial solicited the aid of the archbishop, whose interference the rebellious friars had resisted as an attempt at episcopal visitation.