It has been shown in the preceding chapter that before the coming of the audiencia, the church had utilized the weapon of excommunication on very slight pretext, and it had been partly for the purpose of restraining this abuse that the audiencia was established.[39] The early governors, especially, had many difficulties with this phase of ecclesiastical high-handedness and the letters of such executives as De Vera, Tello, Dasmariñas, and Morga complained continually against this particular abuse of power by the prelates,[40] regretting the lack of any authority to set aside these excessive acts on the part of the churchmen. All the above-mentioned governors had been excommunicated for various acts in opposition to the ecclesiastical power. Governor Ronquillo, in the characteristic letter which is quoted in another part of this treatise, reported that the audiencia, after its establishment, had effectively restrained the excesses of excommunication on the part of the church.[41] Indeed, during the twenty-five years succeeding Ronquillo’s term as governor, the audiencia had so frequently set aside ecclesiastical censures, and so completely terminated the abuses of the privilege of sanctuary by friars and priests, in fact so generally held at naught the principle of ecclesiastical immunity, that the king, on November 13, 1626, was obliged to issue a special cédula in restraint of his Manila tribunal and for the protection of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions.[42]
Examination of a large number of cases shows that the method by which the audiencia set aside excommunication was usually through an ultimate reliance on force. Nevertheless, taking three hundred years of the history of the Philippines into consideration, there were relatively few cases in which matters went so far that the audiencia actually had to use force, the case being usually that the judicial protest of the tribunal against an abuse of this kind was sufficient. Theoretically, any act of excommunication or interdict was suspended, ipso facto, by the intervention of the audiencia pending further investigation, and the prelate was required to abide by the decision of the tribunal.
The following typical cases may be cited to show that the audiencia frequently did rely on the civil power, as a last resort, for the enforcement of its injunctions. In 1623, an oidor was excommunicated for having violated the ecclesiastical sanctuary in seizing Juan Soto de Vega, a fugitive from justice, who had taken refuge in the cathedral. The audiencia, finding itself opposed by the metropolitan court, sent a constable to arrest the provisor who had fulminated the excommunication, threatening the latter with a fine of two thousand pesos and banishment if he did not desist and cancel the censure. The archbishop, who at first supported the provisor, was put under military guard at the behest of the audiencia. The Jesuits then used their good offices in behalf of the government, as a result of which the matter was arbitrated and peace was brought about.[43] In 1636, however, the archbishop and provisor were banished and fined heavily, because they persisted in a censure which the audiencia had restrained. Their continual refusal to harken to the commands of the vicepatron and the royal tribunal and their insistence on the censure were adjudged to constitute fuerza. This case originated in the violation of the right of asylum by the governor and the arrest of a murderer who had taken refuge in the Augustinian convent. So open was the defiance of the civil government that the criminal was executed in the courtyard, under the very windows of the convent wherein were congregated the prelate and his supporters who were commanded not to touch the body for three days.[44] The archbishop was removed from his convent by soldiers at the command of the acuerdo and banished to the island of Corregidor, where he remained twenty-six days, after which mediation was effected and the weak old prelate, tottering with age, was restored to his metropolitan capital.[45] Montero y Vidal states that this case is interesting and important as a test of the power of the governor; for many persons, he alleges, did not believe that the governor could raise an interdict.[46] That he was enabled to do so, with the support of the audiencia and with the aid of his military forces there can be no question.
Some reference should be made at this time to the abuses of the interdict by Archbishop Pardo. This prelate went so far as to place a ban upon the church of the Jesuits because it contained the dead body of an offending oidor. For reasons other than the lack of legal authority, the audiencia was powerless to restrain his censures at that time. On another occasion the audiencia and governor, by placing armed guards at the doors of the Dominican church and preventing the celebration of services therein, suppressed an interdict which had been issued through the influence of that order on behalf of Archbishop Pardo. Governor Bustamante claimed that he was acting in accordance with his own properly constituted authority in 1719, when he appointed his own audiencia, set aside repeated interdicts, penetrated the asylum of the church, arrested the archbishop and defied the entire ecclesiastical organization. He seems to have exceeded his powers no more flagrantly than did some of his predecessors under like circumstances; yet, for personal and political reasons, he was unable to count on the support of the other elements of the colony in this struggle with the ecclesiastical power and the battle ended disastrously for him. Acting-Governor Anda, relying on armed force alone, defended Manila against the British, achieved victory for his cause and secured the approbation of the king in the face of repeated ecclesiastical censures from Archbishop Rojo. These incidents, which occupy a prominent place in the history of the Philippines, illustrate the usual method by which ecclesiastical censures were set aside in actual practice, either by the audiencia or by the vicepatron, who was supported by the tribunal.
A department of the church over which the audiencia did not have such complete authority, either judicially or administratively, was the Inquisition. Properly speaking, there was no tribunal of the Holy Office in the Philippines, the Inquisition being represented in Manila by a commissary.[47] This representative was sufficiently powerful, however, to constitute a worthy opponent for the civil power and one who, on account of the immunities which he enjoyed and because of the secret methods which he was able to employ, kept all the tribunals and authorities of the civil government at a respectful distance.
Although the laws of the Indies directed that the inquisitors who were sent to the colonies should present their titles to the audiencias and viceroys, this did not give the civil authorities any advantage over them. The audiencia was expected to formally receive the inquisitors and to pay them all due respect.[48] At the time of the establishment of the Inquisition in Manila, no audiencia as yet existed. From the very beginning, however, the dignitaries of the Inquisition were placed under special royal protection, with complete power over their own sphere. Officials of the government and all other persons were warned and enjoined not to interfere with or oppose them in any way. As early as May 22, 1610, the Council of the Indies placed itself and all subordinate audiencias and governors in a position inferior to that of the Inquisition. The interference of civil magistrates with the inquisitors in behalf of the government was forbidden,[49] even the ordinary means of protection were denied them. The recurso de fuerza could not be employed, nor could the interdicts of the inquisitors be raised, even in notorious cases of their infringement upon the royal jurisdiction.[50] Little change was made in these laws until the latter part of the eighteenth century. The oidores were ordered to lend such secular aid as might be required, and were originally instructed to obey the mandates and carry out the orders of the inquisitors without inquiries into the religious reason for any action the latter might take. Each judge, ecclesiastical or royal, was to limit himself strictly to his own particular field and thus conflicts of authority were to be avoided.
The laws of the Indies prescribed many regulations which were designed to induce harmony and co-operation between the officials of the Inquisition and those of the civil government. Viceroys, audiencias and governors were authorized to execute the sentences of the representatives of the Inquisition and to extend to them every facility and assistance.[51] Oidores and executives were forbidden to open the mail or tamper with the correspondence or legal documents of the inquisitors.[52] Oidores and fiscales were authorized to give legal advice to the judges of the Inquisition when counsel of this kind was required.[53] The inquisitors were to be given precedence over the officials of the civil government in everything pertaining to the official duties of the former, but in questions of civil administration and in matters of ceremony, the oidores took precedence over inquisitors, unless the latter enjoyed higher rank by virtue of some other office.[54]
The tendency of the laws, however, through a period of two hundred years, was to delimit and circumscribe the authority of the Inquisition in matters bordering on the jurisdiction of the civil government. This is seen, especially, in the offense of polygamy, which, up to 1754, was dealt with solely by the Inquisition. By the cédula of March 19th of that year, polygamy was brought under the fuero mixto;[55] the same law ordered that prisoners, after punishment by the inquisitorial tribunal for heresy, should be dealt with by civil judges for an offense against the laws of the realm. On September 7, 1766, this crime was again made punishable solely by the Inquisition, but on August 10, 1788, jurisdiction over cases of polygamy was taken entirely from the Inquisition and given to the royal justices.[56] This may be considered as indicative of the decline of the authority of the Inquisition in the eighteenth century. The inquisitors, of course, were not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over the Chinese, or over the aboriginal inhabitants of the Islands.[57]
In its relations with the civil power in the Philippines, and particularly with the audiencia, two charges have been brought against the Inquisition. The first was that in the early years of the Islands’ history, it was utilized by the prelates for the more complete usurpation of powers belonging to the civil government and the audiencia. The tribunal, of course, was left entirely without recourse, by virtue of the exemptions and immunities of the Inquisition mentioned above. On July 20, 1585, the audiencia, in a letter to the king, cited several instances in which Bishop Salazar, unwilling to cede his claims to jurisdiction over certain civil offenders, handed them over to the commissary of the Inquisition, instead of surrendering them to the audiencia, to which jurisdiction over such cases belonged. The audiencia, appealing to the king for aid, alleged that the prelate had taken undue advantage of the civil power, “by sheltering himself behind the Inquisition, ... where the audiencia has no jurisdiction.”[58] This charge was also brought against Salazar by the Jesuit, Sánchez, in his memorial of 1591.[59] It is significant that no decree was issued during the earlier era which authorized the audiencia to repair the abuses of the inquisitors, although on many occasions the audiencia and the local court of the Inquisition were respectively enjoined to confine themselves to their own particular fields of authority.[60]
The second charge made against the Inquisition was that it allowed itself to be influenced, utilized, and possessed by individuals and private interests for their own selfish ends. Under these conditions the audiencia was powerless; the Inquisition openly fought the government and vanquished it entirely on various notable occasions. There may be found no better illustration of this than the Salcedo affair in 1667 and 1668, during which the commissary of the Inquisition was the instrument of the governor’s enemies, proceeding to such excesses in his zeal that he ultimately proved to be the agent of his own downfall.[61]