Reference was made in the last chapter to the suits which occurred between the Jesuits and Dominicans, the two orders most extensively interested in higher education, for the right to maintain universities in Manila. The greater number of these disputes, in fact all of them, seem to have been based on the rivalry of their two colleges and on their zeal for royal favor and patronage. When Santo Tomás became a royal university in 1648, and was empowered to grant degrees as such, the Jesuits brought suit in the audiencia for the right to confer honors of a like character in their college of San José. The audiencia denied their petition; the case was appealed to the Council of the Indies, and the higher authority decided that both institutions should enjoy equally the privilege of conferring scholastic honors.[21] The rivalry and bitter feeling between these two orders did not cease with this settlement, but in 1683 the Dominicans again brought suit in the audiencia, seeking to limit the educational activities of the Jesuits. The matter was again carried to the Council of the Indies. Although the decision was made in favor of the Jesuits, the disagreements between the two orders, the charges and counter-charges, and the influence of Archbishop Pardo, a Dominican, in behalf of his own order, went far beyond the authority of the audiencia, whose efforts to restrain them were entirely ineffectual.[22]
Even the natives themselves, at times, went so far as to sue the religious orders in the audiencia. This was done in 1738 when the mestizos of Santa Cruz brought suit against the Jesuits, because the latter had sought to make the residents of Santa Cruz pay for certain improvements in the parishes of that district. These improvements had been authorized by the Jesuits, and from them the society had derived great benefit, while the residents had derived no particular good from them.[23] In 1737, on complaint of the natives, an investigation was conducted by Oidor Calderón which put a check upon certain transactions of the Jesuits in the province of Batangas. It was proved that they had collected rents repeatedly from the Indians for lands to which they had no title.
The most significant and decisive judicial authority which the audiencia exercised in ecclesiastical matters, and that which was productive of more conflicts and opposition on the part of the church than any other cause, was the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the secular church courts, at the head of which was the metropolitan tribunal of the archbishop. The method of intervention most frequently followed in cases appealed from the archbishop was by the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza.[24] In this way the civil jurisdiction, acting through the audiencia, could intervene for its own protection, and by means of this special procedure that tribunal actually did restrain the ecclesiastical judges more frequently and effectively in important cases than in any other way. It was on the grounds of fuerza that the audiencia justified its action in practically all cases of interference with the jurisdiction of the church courts.
Cases of fuerza were those which came to the audiencia through the abuse of their judicial powers by prelates or ecclesiastical judges; cases, literally, in which the latter had usurped or trespassed the authority of the civil courts or government.[25] The execution of the decision of an ecclesiastical judge could be suspended by an edict of the audiencia on the grounds of fuerza, while the case was being investigated by that tribunal.[26] The civil government usually took the initiative in these appeals, but there were occasions in the history of the Islands in which ecclesiastical authorities and tribunals interposed recursos de fuerza against the archbishop. In dealing with these cases the audiencia first ascertained whether fuerza had been committed and then, if the results of the investigation were affirmative, the tribunal was empowered to raise the fuerza (alzar or quitar la fuerza)[27] and place limitations upon the ecclesiastical authority in order to prevent future abuse of power.[28] The audiencia was without authority to fine prelates, bishops, or ecclesiastical judges, but it had sufficient jurisdiction to remedy excesses and restore conditions to their former state. The tribunal was urged to use the utmost discretion in dispossessing offending prelates and judges of their benefices or positions,[29] as a punishment for fuerza, and not to proceed to such lengths except in exceptional cases, wherein the strictest measures were necessary. On such occasions the audiencia might exile the offending ecclesiastic, giving account of its act to the Council of the Indies.[30] All proceedings of this nature had to be carried on secretly and with the greatest possible dispatch and brevity,[31] and all churchmen who were deprived of their benefices through the recurso de fuerza had the privilege of an appeal to the Council of the Indies.[32]
In the treatment of cases of fuerza an informal judicial hearing was given; the spirit of the proceeding was supposed to be that of a harmonious investigation, in which both sides, ecclesiastical and civil, were mutually and equally concerned in the solution of a given problem, and in ascertaining wherein error had been committed. The object of this proceeding was said to be the furtherance of the interests of the crown, the salvation of souls and the spread of the benevolent influence of the church. That the spirit of peace and harmony failed to manifest itself at many of these investigations, is shown by the bitter contests which arose between the civil and ecclesiastical judges as results of the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza. The spiritual authorities alleged on these occasions that they regarded the restraining action of the government as presumption, unauthorized by ecclesiastical canons.
In the well-known Pardo controversy (1683–1689), references to which may be found in any history of the Philippines, there occurred many occasions on which the audiencia was obliged to avail itself of the recurso de fuerza. By this means the audiencia sought to restrain Archbishop Pardo from usurping the civil jurisdiction and that of the religious orders and of the metropolitan chapter. Interference with these orders was in violation of the royal patronage, the ultimate authority over them being the patron and not the archbishop. Such action, therefore, became a civil offense, punishable by the civil tribunals, the highest of which and the one properly equipped to deal with such cases, was the audiencia. It will be noted that Pardo paid the penalty of exile for repeatedly ignoring the audiencia and its right of interposition through the recurso de fuerza, and the subsequent ineffectiveness of the audiencia was due to reasons and conditions other than the decline of the authority and importance of the recurso de fuerza. This controversy which is more fully described in preceding chapters affords the best example extant of the operation of the recurso de fuerza, its nature and effects, hence the citation of minor cases is rendered unnecessary.
Closely related to the question of fuerza as illustrating the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the church courts, occurs that of the interdict. A price which the civil authorities frequently had to pay for the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza, or any other opposition, in fact, to the unrestricted authority of the ecclesiastics, was the penalty which usually accompanied the interdict, of being forbidden to participate in religious rites and ceremonies, or to continue receiving the customary spiritual consolations and benefits of the church.[33] The authority of the audiencia to restrain the excessive use of this weapon by the ecclesiastics may be considered to have been judicial in its nature, since the prelates, by undue use of the episcopal censure, went beyond their ecclesiastical jurisdiction and encroached upon the royal prerogative. A form of judicial inquiry was instituted to ascertain the act and degree of encroachment; indeed, the excessive use of the interdict was interpreted to constitute fuerza, and the method just described was employed by the tribunal to combat it.
We may turn again to the Pardo controversy for an example of the intervention of the audiencia to restrain a prelate from excessive use of the interdict. Pardo, after his return from exile, fulminated censures against ex-Governor Juan de Vargas and the entire audiencia which had supported him against the archbishop. The ban against the oidores was quickly removed, technically on the grounds that the magistrates were still royal officials, but in reality for the sake of expediency. Vargas, however, was not absolved. The audiencia, according to the existing laws, had the right to force the prelate to remove the ban,[34] but owing to dissensions within the tribunal, the opposition of the new governor, the increasing power of the archbishop, the certainty that the royal authority had already disapproved of its acts, and the impending visitation of a royal commissioner (Valdivia), who had instructions to settle the discord and strife at Manila at any cost, the oidores thought it best not to take this step. The archbishop refused to absolve Vargas because of the technical reason that his case came under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.
The audiencia was expected to restrain the interdict whenever this ecclesiastical prohibition interfered with the government or incapacitated the officials thereof from executing their duties. The interdict was not to interfere with the royal prerogative, nor was it to be imposed for insignificant causes or personal reasons.[35] The audiencia was given the special injunction not to interfere with censures generally, but to permit them to be applied in needful cases, the oidores bearing in mind only the requirement that these ecclesiastical measures should not be allowed to interfere with the civil government.[36]
It had frequently been the practice of the prelates to pronounce censures against oidores and alcaldes, who, in proceeding with their duties as inspectors of the provinces, encroached upon what the churchmen regarded as their own particular and private jurisdiction. This, of course, was forbidden, and the audiencia, by way of fuerza, usually entertained appeals from these officials of the civil government and set aside all such acts on the part of the representatives of the church. Reference was made in the last chapter to the circumstances surrounding the effort of Oidor Guerela to inspect the province of Camarines. This magistrate was excommunicated by the bishop of that diocese and was compelled to remain in banishment five months, the audiencia refusing to set aside the censure on account of the personal animosity of the magistrates toward Guerela. Nevertheless, prelates were enjoined to obey the audiencia when that tribunal ordered the cancellation or suspension of an episcopal censure or prohibition.[37] When an appeal was made to the audiencia from such an act by an alcalde, oidor, visitor, or other official at some distance from the capital, the prelate was expected, upon the judicial summons of the audiencia, to suspend his censure until the facts of the case had been ascertained, and the decision of the tribunal had been rendered.[38] This was the law, but occasionally, as in the case of Guerela, local circumstances rendered impossible or undesirable the fulfillment of the law.