The audiencia early exercised advisory powers in educational affairs. The Jesuits as early as 1585 had requested permission to found and establish a college or seminary in Manila, and the king, on January 11, 1587, requested of the audiencia a report on the general conduct, progress and accomplishments of the Jesuit order, asking in particular what benefit would accrue from the establishment of a Jesuit college in Manila. The audiencia, in its report of June 25, 1588, characterized their work as very effective, the learning and ability of their personnel remarkable, but in the opinion of the oidores there was scarcely any need of a college in Manila at that time, and there were no means of supporting one.[66]
When Santo Tomás became a royal university in 1648, the Jesuits were obliged to sue in the audiencia for the right to continue the bestowal of academic degrees. Their request was denied by the tribunal, but the decision was reversed by the Council of the Indies in 1653.[67] On May 3, 1722, San José was made a royal college and was subjected to the visitation and patronage of the audiencia. In 1769, when the Jesuits were suppressed, an attempt was made to continue San José as a secular institution under the supervision of the audiencia. This brought forth such determined opposition from the Dominicans and from the friends and supporters of Santo Tomás that on June 30, 1778, a cédula was issued ordering the audiencia to close San José and hand over all students in attendance there to the archbishop, so that they might be placed in secular colleges and seminaries.[68] This was done, and the audiencia rendered to the Council of the Indies a report on the administration of the finances pertaining to the transaction. The revenues derived from all unsold properties belonging to the Jesuits were included in the temporalities, and the income from these were transmitted to the royal treasury. Subsequently the archbishop attempted to assume jurisdiction over these Jesuit properties and funds, and to this the audiencia objected. In 1784 the matter was finally settled by the decree of the king in answer to an appeal which had been carried by the prelate from the audiencia to the Council of the Indies. He sustained the audiencia and forbade the prelate from interfering with these temporalities.
The Dominicans were more successful in the maintenance of an educational institution.[69] On the occasion of the extension of the charter of the University of Santo Tomás on May 17, 1680, the king ordered “my president and the auditors of my Audiencia of that city, and request and charge the archbishop of the city, the bishops of the said islands, the ecclesiastical and secular cabildos, the superiors of the orders, and any other of my judges and justices,” ... to acknowledge the University of Santo Tomás as a beneficiary of the royal patronage. Its title was formally extended on June 21, 1681, by act of the audiencia.[70] The tribunal not only exercised the right of patronage over the Dominican university, but also over the College of San Juan de Letrán, a seminary for boys which was founded in 1640 and maintained by the Dominicans as an adjunct to Santo Tomás.
Reports, recommendations, and informaciones exist in abundance to prove that the audiencia exercised considerable influence in the life and history of these institutions. The tribunal celebrated acuerdos to improve the instruction in mathematics, physics, law and medicine. It provided for the examination of students, passed on their credentials, made regulations for the bestowal of degrees and decided upon the fitness of prospective teachers.[71] It supervised the records of these institutions, audited their finances and sent reports to the king and Council concerning the work of the universities and colleges. In its jurisdiction and authority over these educational institutions the audiencia served in behalf of the sovereign as his royal tribunal. These were royal universities, endowed with special royal charters and privileges and it was fitting that they should be controlled by the royal audiencia in the king’s name. In addition to this, as they were administered by the church, the audiencia and the vicepatron exercised joint control over them, in the name of the royal patronage in the same manner that they supervised other ecclesiastical activities.
As we have already noted, the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over matters of church finance. The most notable examples of its control may be seen in the administration of tithes,[72] the funds of temporalities, obras pias, funds of the Crusade, and espolios of the prelates.
The audiencia was authorized to guard the royal interest in the matter of the collection and the administration of tithes, particularly with a view to seeing that over-ambitious churchmen did not obtain more than their share, and that in the collection of the tithes they did not oppress the natives. The special care of the oidores was to see that tithes be not paid directly to the prelates.[73] In fact, these funds were to be administered by the civil government, and prelates were not to be allowed to interfere with their collection. No changes were to be made in the authorized manner of collecting these funds on the responsibility of colonial officials. Recommendations for reform should be made to the Council of the Indies either by the prelate or by the audiencia.[74] The audiencia was ordered to see that the proper division and distribution of tithes were made, and that the two-ninths of the gross sum collected was duly set aside for the crown, in accordance with the law.[75]
Further evidence that the audiencia was regarded as the instrument of the royal will in these matters is afforded by the circumstances leading up to the reforms of 1768 and 1786; and it should be noted particularly that the king and Council relied on that tribunal for advice and assistance in the drafting and execution of these measures. A number of tentative laws and proposals for changes in the system of collection and administration of the tithes was sent to the audiencia, from time to time, prior to 1768, and the magistrates were required to submit opinions as to the availability and applicability of the proposed measures. In 1768 a decree was issued fixing the tithe at ten reales per Indian. Previous to that year a number of religious orders owning large tracts of agricultural land had refused to pay these taxes, and the audiencia, by virtue of the royal order of September 25, 1768, was ordered to enforce the law, which it did, even proceeding to the seizure of the chattels of the recalcitrant friars.[76] On December 11, 1775, the audiencia passed an ordinance diminishing the tithes to be paid by natives, mestizos, Chinese and Japanese by one-half real per person.[77] On July 12, 1778, the king asked the audiencia to submit evidence on the question of whether the law worked any hardship on the inhabitants of the colony, and whether encomenderos and friars were paying their share.[78] At the same time, and on the same date, the royal approval was given to the auto which the audiencia had enacted on December 11, 1775. The recommendations of the audiencia were also largely followed in the decree of January 20, 1786, which was merely a repromulgation of an earlier auto of the audiencia, which ordered that tithes should not be collected directly from the Indians unless the latter were owners of lands. Otherwise they were to be collected from the landlords.[79]
By subsequent laws the audiencia was temporarily deprived of its jurisdiction over tithes. When the Philippine government was reorganized in 1787 by the Ordinance of Intendants, many of the special commissions which had been previously retained by the magistrates were ceded to the superintendent of real hacienda. The actual collection of tithes was made the duty of the superintendent by cédula of October 6, 1792,[80] but because of its relation to the royal patronage the audiencia, in practice, found it convenient to retain control. Governor Aguilar, who was also superintendent of real hacienda, wrote to the king on July 31, 1799,[81] alleging that there was no reason why the audiencia should exercise this authority, when, by virtue of its financial nature, this duty belonged to the superintendent. He stated that the audiencia had been given this jurisdiction when there had been no other authority for the collection of tithes, but that as it was not a controversial matter, there was no reason for the continuance of this condition. In the letter referred to Aguilar stated that he had attempted to put his interpretation of the law into execution, but in so doing had been opposed by the audiencia. The answer to this appeal does not appear in connection with the original, but the royal cédula of April 21, 1803, restored to the audiencia jurisdiction over the collection of tithes.[82]
It may be said, however, that with the creation of the superintendency the audiencia was shorn of many of the miscellaneous functions with which it had been formerly endowed. The funds of the temporalities, however, did not come under this category. They were greatly augmented in 1767 when the Jesuits were suppressed, and as was usual with such miscellaneous and unclassified duties, as well as on account of the audiencia’s relation to the royal patronage, the administration of these funds came under the charge of an oidor whose official title was “administrator of the funds of the temporalities.”[83]
Nevertheless, the audiencia’s share of direct control over these funds was still considerable. On January 23, 1803, a cédula was issued ordering that the money of the temporalities and obras pias should be put at the disposal of the acuerdo of the audiencia.[84] A report was submitted to that tribunal by Superintendent Aguilar on July 20, 1804, in accordance with this cédula. The report of Aguilar showed a balance on hand of 151,625 pesos waiting to be sent to Spain by the first transportation. In 1809, the jurisdiction of these funds was completely restored to the audiencia, with the provision that the oidores who acted as their administrators should receive a three per cent commission. As the funds were constantly drawn upon, and there were no further confiscations of property of this sort, they can be accounted as of little importance, yielding practically no revenue from that date. Owing to the continual appeals of the government for money with which to defray the expenses of putting down the various insurrections from 1808 to 1814 and subsequently, the funds of the temporalities, like every other peso that came into the treasuries of the colonies, were sent to Spain as rapidly as they were collected.[85]