[75] King to the Audiencia, August 13, 1793, A. I., 105–2–10.
[76] Recopilación, 3–2–70 (after 1680), 67.
[77] Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, VII, 67.
[78] Mas, “Internal political condition of the Philippines,” in Blair and Robertson, LII, 70–73. Mas was a Spanish diplomatic official stationed in China, who visited the Islands in 1842 on a semi-official mission. This writer was not favorably impressed with the effectiveness of the acuerdo. He wrote: “Whatever difficulty occurs in the fulfilment of an order, it must be solved by means of a conference and advice [consulta], from which a reply is not obtained until from twelve to fourteen months.” Instead of governmental matters being referred to the acuerdo, Mas stated that they were referred to Spain, hence there was great delay. He stated that the governor scarcely decided any question by himself, and those which were solved in the colony were referred to the asesor, and “from this practice,” he continued, “arises the system of expedientes, which reigns, and which is so fatal to the prosperity and good government of the country, since very often the arrangement that appears good to some, is contrary to the opinions or interests of others.... Thus much valuable time is lost and the expedientes result in only a waste of paper, besides great injury to the islands. The governor often has to conform to the opinions expressed in the expediente, although he knows they will be the cause of injustice. On the other hand, the governor is often directly at fault, because he enforces his own opinion on his assessor (sp.), who has often obtained his position through favoritism and is not a lawyer, and decides questions according to the will of the governor.... The chiefs of the various departments carry on correspondence with the directors-general of their respective departments in Madrid, without the knowledge of the governor, a fact that increases the confusion and disorder.” (See also Revilla Gigedo’s description of the evils of the expediente in New Spain [1790]. Smith, The viceroy of New Spain, 190–191.)
This description of the Philippine government in 1842 would seem to indicate that aside from the limitations imposed upon his rule by the audiencia, the governor was obliged to contend with a number of other officials, departments, and regulations, which effectively prevented him from exercising absolute power, even at the sacrifice of efficiency. We note in this description, moreover, that tendency of Spanish colonial government which has been emphasized so often in this treatise—namely, the failure of the home government to leave to the colonial officials sufficient scope of action or authority to deal adequately with the ordinary problems of government. Up to the end of the eighteenth century the audiencia was the only civil authority or tribunal present to exercise any check on the executive in administrative affairs. However, in the last century the importance of the audiencia in this regard was diminished by the creation of other departments, ministries, and offices, by the elimination of time and space, due to the progress of invention, which brought the colonies nearer to Spain, and finally by the fact that the tribunal itself was more and more confined to judicial affairs.
[79] Governor Torres to the Queen, March 18, 1835, A. I., 106–4–21.
[80] Colección legislativa de España, LXXXVI, 1–45. Elliott, in his Philippines to the end of the military regime, p. 242, states incorrectly that this reform took place in 1865. Mr. Elliott did not make use of the sources. It is to be noted, too, that Dr. Barrows in his article on “The governor general of the Philippines,” in The Pacific Ocean in history makes contradictory statements relative to this matter. On page 242 he asserts that the governor was president of the audiencia till 1844, and on page 248 the statement occurs that “a further specialization of 1861 deprived the governor-general of his judicial powers.”
[81] Instruction of the King to Governor Acuña, February 16, 1602, Blair and Robertson, XI, 263–88.
[82] Fray Sánchez, in his memorial of July 26, 1586, stated that the audiencia had stopped the practice of conceding encomiendas (A. I., 67–6–27), which the governors had followed prior to its establishment. Nevertheless the governor’s authority to bestow encomiendas was recognized by the royal instructions to Governor Dasmariñas, issued May 25, 1593 (Blair and Robertson, IX, 232). The statement of Sánchez may be interpreted to mean that the audiencia had stopped the abuses which had been perpetrated by various governors in bestowing encomiendas on their friends. Encomiendas were conceded by different governors in the Philippines throughout the eighteenth century. This matter has been discussed in an earlier note.
[83] Mas, “Internal political conditions of the Philippines, 1842,” Blair and Robertson, LII, 69–70 and note. The keen observations of this official on social and governmental conditions in the Philippines are peculiarly pertinent, and they are as true in many regards today as they were seventy-five years ago. He recommended a regency to govern the Philippines, consisting of the governor as president, a military commander and an intendant of finance. The audiencia, according to his plan of reform, was to be limited to judicial affairs, with appellate jurisdiction over civil, criminal, and commercial cases. Instead of the audiencia as a court of appeals against the governor, the regency was to entertain appeals from the audiencia. Many of his ideas were incorporated into the new laws of the last half of the nineteenth century (ibid., 78–85).