Salazar’s optimism in regard to the good intentions of the governor could not have been long continued, for Morga tells us that in the first year of the government of Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas the need of an audiencia was felt by many.[49] At that time, all the powers of government were centralized in the governor, and there was no immediate authority to which the people could apply for relief. Salazar had many disputes with the governor over questions relating to the respective spheres of the church and state, and from the decisions of the executive the prelate had no recourse. Dasmariñas, on reporting these matters to the king, stated that the bishop had interfered in the matter of the collection of the tribute, the government of the encomiendas, the Chinese trade (in which, the governor alleged that the prelate had an unpriestly interest), and in the administration of justice.[50] The prelate had interpreted the removal of the audiencia as constituting a re-establishment of the concession formerly made to the church of extensive control in the administration of government and justice. He claimed that ecclesiastical judges should have the same civil jurisdiction as they had exercised before the audiencia was first founded. This, of course, the governor would not tolerate.
Bishop Salazar was so displeased with the turn which affairs had taken in Manila that he determined to leave the Islands, and passage being placed at his disposal by the willing governor, the bishop set out in July, 1592.[51] On his arrival in Spain, Salazar concerned himself principally with religious matters, securing some valuable reforms. Among the latter was the erection of the Philippines into an archbishopric and the creation of three subordinate bishoprics. Salazar showed the desirability of the restoration of the audiencia as a preventive check on the excesses of the governor, but this change was not made as an immediate consequence of his recommendations.
A cédula was issued on January 17, 1593, which outlined with more definiteness a judicial system for the Islands. This reform confirmed the position of the governor as nominal head of the judiciary, with jurisdiction over appeals from the lower courts, but it decreed that these cases should be tried by a letrado. The governor’s final and conclusive jurisdiction was extended to all cases not exceeding a thousand ducats in value. Cases of a greater value might be appealed to the Audiencia of Mexico.[52] The governor was given authority to name a protector of the Indians.[53]
The above changes were followed shortly by the cédula of August 18, 1593, by which the title of teniente de capitán-general y asesor de gobernador y capitán-general de las Islas Filipinas was bestowed on Don Antonio de Morga, who was probably the most efficient jurist and one of the most versatile officials that Spain ever sent to her Asiatic dependency.[54] Morga was at this time not only successor to the audiencia in judicial matters, but also attorney-general and sole legal adviser to the governor. His predecessor, Pedro de Rojas, was transferred to Mexico, in pursuance of the idea, as alleged in the order of transfer, of removing from the Philippines all the members of the old audiencia, so that the new scheme, as revised at that time, might be allowed to work itself out without prejudice. Before his departure, the residencia of Rojas was conducted by Morga.
Even the reforms of 1593 did not suffice to make the administration of justice satisfactory to all parties. From the large amount of correspondence which exists, embodying complaints against the harsh methods of Dasmariñas and his successor, Tello, three letters may be cited which show the attitude of the various officials of the colony towards the re-establishment of the audiencia. The first of these was written by Governor Dasmariñas himself, and it may be in some ways surprising to note that he asked for the restoration of the audiencia. His reasons, in part, however, were different from those advanced by his contemporaries. Dasmariñas was of the opinion that an audiencia would be effective in the nullification of the interdicts and excommunications imposed by the archbishop and the local prelates, which he claimed were working havoc with the civil government.[55]
The treasury officials complained that the absolute government of the executive was contrary to the interests of real hacienda. Their objections to the prevailing system were voiced in the second of the memorials alluded to above, that of Francisco de la Misa, factor of the royal treasury of Manila.[56] Misa said that under the former arrangement the audiencia had audited the accounts of the royal treasury and of the city of Manila each year. In this way the accounts had been well kept and the funds properly accounted for. The removal of the audiencia had left the governor with authority over the nomination of the officials of real hacienda, as well as the supervision of the accounts. Since Dasmariñas had been governor, no accounts had been rendered by the minor officials of the treasury, and, as a consequence, their superiors had been unable to make up their reports for the Contaduría of Mexico. The governor’s attention had been called to this deficiency repeatedly, but the latter had displayed no interest in the state of the colony’s finances, which, said Misa, exceeded all other matters in importance. “This comes,” the factor observed, “from placing in charge of Your Majesty’s finances a soldier, unfitted to do else than command troops, and then unchecked by an audiencia, so far distant from your royal person.” The laxity of the governor and of his subordinates seems to have resulted in the loss of much revenue.
Misa also showed that there had been many irregularities in the sale of offices, deficiencies which the presence of an audiencia would have checked. Instead of selling the minor clerkships of the exchequer, the governor had given them to his friends. Two offices, which were by no means insignificant, those of the chief clerkships of government and of justice, respectively, had been sold formerly for four thousand pesos each. The governor, however, had preferred to have them on his civil patronage list; this would not have been permitted had an audiencia been present to enforce the law.
The governor was charged by Misa with extravagance in the expenditure of the revenue of the colony. The payment of the salaries of new appointees to offices, friends of the governor, had made heavy drains on the treasury. The king, by repeated cédulas, had forbidden the designation of an excessive number of alcaldes and corregidores because of the desirability of economizing the resources of the colony. While the audiencia was in existence its consent had been necessary for the creation of new judicial districts, but since the recall of the tribunal, the governor had trebled the number of provincial officials, and, in addition, had permitted each to have a salaried assistant.
According to Misa, various other evils had resulted from the absolutism of the governor, among which were numerous abuses which he had tolerated in the galleon trade. It was alleged that Spanish merchants in Mexico had sent money to agents in Manila, and in that way had caused the legal amount brought from Acapulco for investment on the annual galleon to be exceeded.[57] This, the factor stated, was due partially to the laxity and corruption of the Acapulco officials, who had permitted the galleon to leave that port with more than the authorized amount of money. The governor of the Philippines, however, could have prevented this abuse had he been so inclined, as the ships’ manifests were always subject to his inspection on arrival at Manila. The money sent by the merchants of Mexico was invested in merchandise in the Islands and these goods were shipped back to Acapulco on the galleon, thus excluding the commerce of the local merchants. The latter were growing poorer daily while the governor and his friends were waxing richer. The governor had also exercised favoritism in the distribution of cargo space, thus rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.[58] Since the suppression of the audiencia these abuses had increased, as there had been no authority in Manila to hold the governor in check.
This memorial, from Misa, which was carefully considered at court, went far toward demonstrating that the restoration of the audiencia would have beneficial results, so far as the administration of real hacienda was concerned.