It will be our function in this chapter to determine the participation of the civil courts in these matters.
The power of intervention in ecclesiastical matters which was exercised by the civil tribunals was always a source of discord in the Philippines. The attitude of the churchmen on this question is well shown by a letter written January 20, 1688, by Fray Alonso Laudín, procurator in Madrid for the Franciscans of the Philippines, in protest against the encroachments of civil government. He wrote that
the principal causes of trouble in the Philippines are the disagreements which continually exist between the royal audiencia and the ecclesiastical judges; ... the ministers of the royal audiencia, by virtue of the royal patronage of Your Majesty whom they represent, ... hold ... that the audiencia has ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Church and over purely ecclesiastical persons, over spiritual cases and the administration of the Holy Sacrament, ... and spiritual and territorial jurisdiction in regular and secular parishes.[8]
Laudín described the helplessness of the ecclesiastical judges and the ineffectiveness of their jurisdiction, circumscribed as it was by that of the civil magistrates. He stated that all the judicial acts of the ecclesiastical ordinaries were rendered null by the magistrates of the audiencia and that the ecclesiastical authorities were reduced to such a condition that they did not know where to turn for relief or remedy, as even the papal decrees were rendered ineffectual by the encroachments of the civil jurisdiction. He stated that “the ecclesiastical judges see in all this a meddling and interference with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which has always been allowed, but they cannot hereafter give fulfillment to the provisions of the audiencia, even at the risk of expulsion from their districts.” Laudín was of the opinion that the laws had been misinterpreted by the civil officials and that the king had never intended that the churchmen should be so entirely shorn of their powers. He concluded his appeal with the solicitation that such laws should be made as would determine the questions at issue and bring about harmony between church and state in the Islands. This should be done, he said, “in order that each may be caused to see clearly the duties and jurisdiction which belongs to him and that each may freely make use of his own powers and prerogatives, and thus avoid suits and other disagreements.”
The laws of the Indies prescribed that the most harmonious relations should prevail between the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates. The audiencia was commanded to aid the prelates and ecclesiastical magistrates in the exercise of their jurisdiction, neither interfering with them nor permitting them to be molested by other civil authorities.[9] These laws, like those of the royal patronage, not only gave to the civil government a commanding position with relation to the church, but they established the magistrates as the supervisors and guardians of the church courts.
It was the duty of the audiencia, on the other hand, to guard strictly the prerogatives of the civil magistrates, and, in fact, those of all officials of the government, and not to allow the ecclesiastics to infringe on their jurisdiction through acts of fuerza, interdicts, or by any other illegal means.[10] The ecclesiastical courts were forbidden to try laymen or those subject in first instance to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. They were forbidden to imprison private subjects, or embargo or sell their property without first seeking the consent and co-operation of the secular arm.[11] They were forbidden to try any cases except those involving the church, and they could not, without the aid of the civil authorities, impose fines or condemn persons to labor.[12] In general, they were solicited to work in harmony with the audiencia, and to give all possible assistance to that body.[13] Wherein doubt existed or where there was reason to believe that an action might constitute an interference with the civil prerogative, the ecclesiastical judges were ordered to ask the advice of the secular authorities. The ecclesiastical and secular magistrates were enjoined to aid each other actively when occasion demanded, the prelates supporting the audiencia, and the latter dispatching provisions to its magistrates and subdelegates in support of the ecclesiastical judges and tribunals.[14]
The laws cited above did not become effective suddenly, but were evolved through a long period of dissension and dispute between the ecclesiastical and the civil authorities. Before the audiencia was established in the Islands, the parish priests, friars, and ecclesiastical ordinaries in many cases exercised the duties of local judges in both the spiritual and temporal spheres. There can be no question but that the church rendered very efficient service in this particular, especially under the leadership of Bishop Salazar.[15]
The surrender of their prerogatives by the ecclesiastics was gradually though reluctantly made as the civil courts became more firmly established in the Islands. At first, the entire clergy, with few exceptions, from the bishop to the most isolated parish priest, opposed the change, and regarded the assumption of their former powers by the civil authorities as unauthorized usurpation.[16] It was with great difficulty that the churchmen were able to adjust themselves to the new conditions. They were required frequently to aid the civil authorities in the apprehension of criminals and in the obtaining of testimony, thus co-operating generally in the administration of justice.[17] A noteworthy conflict arose when the audiencia summoned Bishop Salazar before it to testify as an ordinary witness, and to explain his own actions on various occasions, in retarding the work of the civil courts. These summonses he regarded as detracting from his ecclesiastical immunity. Subsequently, the audiencia was admonished that on no occasion should churchmen be called to act as witnesses.[18] So it came about that although the intervention of the audiencia was prescribed by the laws of the Indies and admitted elsewhere in the Philippines, owing to the strength of the ecclesiastical organization, and its former prominence in affairs of government, the assumption of its legal power by the audiencia was necessarily gradual. Nevertheless, the tribunal ultimately attained extensive authority in ecclesiastical affairs, an analysis of which will now be made.
The audiencia exercised jurisdiction as a high court of appeal over suits to which the religious orders were parties. Most of these cases originated in misunderstandings or contentions over jurisdiction, titles to land, and over the claims relating to occupation of provinces under the royal patronage, which the various orders advanced. Most frequent of all were the suits between the orders, as to jurisdiction over provinces. An example of this is furnished by the contention which arose in 1736 between the Jesuits and the Recollects for the exclusive right to minister in Mindanao. Another case of a similar nature was the adjudication of a dispute between the Recollects and the Dominicans for spiritual jurisdiction in the province of Zambales, as a result of which the Recollects were finally ordered to confine their missionary activities to Mindoro.[19] Another case was the dispute between the Franciscans and the Observant friars. A large number of the latter arrived in the Islands in 1648 with letters from the Viceroy of New Spain. They were at once given territory which had been previously assigned to the Franciscans. On the basis of a brief of Urban VIII, prohibiting the occupation of the same province by two different orders, the Franciscans brought suit in the audiencia with the result that the newcomers were not only dispossessed of the province that had been assigned to them, but their patents and briefs were cancelled on the grounds that they were not properly authorized by the Council of the Indies.[20]