In 1777, Doctor Ignacio de Salazar, magistral of the Manila cathedral, was chosen rector and administrator of the college. From that date until 1879, the position of rector and administrator of the college was always confirmed by the governors-general to the dean or other dignitary of the Manila cathedral. Accounts of the administration of the college were to be rendered every three years, or annually. The management of the college was not successful, and the administration of the properties was negligent and possibly corrupt during some years. The field of secondary education which it had attempted to fill came to be occupied by newer and more successful institutions, such as the Ateneo Municipal and the college of San Juan de Letran.[37]
From the books of the university of Santo Tomás, it seems that a few years after the expulsion of the Jesuits, if not immediately, instruction on philosophy and the natural sciences was resumed, and that two professors were appointed for that purpose, and that in 1795 the government of the islands recommended the abolition of such instruction, applying the revenues therefrom to the payment of the fees of the institutes and law courses, which recommendation was not carried out on account of an unfavorable report of the faculty of the university. Only grammar and philosophy were taught until 1866, and pupils were required to pass an examination in the university of Santo Tomás before two professors appointed for the purpose, in order to legalize their courses. The first four years of secondary instruction were established at this period.[38]
Between the years 1860 and 1870, the question of the conversion of the college into a professional school of some sort—arts, agriculture, or medicine—was much discussed, particularly its conversion into a school of medicine and pharmacy. Finally, in 1867, a board consisting of the rectors of the university, Ateneo Municipal, and college of San José, and one representative each of the professions of medicine and pharmacy, was convened by royal order, and charged with the duty of ascertaining the origin and object of the college of San José, its revenues and pious charges, and the best manner of installing therein classes of medicine and pharmacy. The report of the committee was to the effect that such studies could be admitted. The rector and administrator of the college in 1869 was of the same opinion, and the rector of the university of Santo Tomás also considered such a thing legal. November 6, 1870, the Spanish government adopted the decrees concerning education in the Philippines, known as the Moret decrees,[39] by which the attempt was made to secularize most of the institutions of learning. Among other provisions in these decrees was one directing that the college of San José, the college of San Juan de Letran, and the Ateneo Municipal, as well as the naval academy and the drawing and painting academy should be united in one academy for secondary and entirely secular education to be known as the Philippine Institute, to be subject to the ultimate control of a Superior Board of Education which was civil and secular in its character. These decrees were never enforced, for they were vigorously opposed by those in charge of the above institutions.[40]
In 1875, a royal provision established the faculty of medicine and pharmacy in the college.[41] This decree, issued October 29, 1875, reorganized the university of Santo Tomás. Article 2 of the decree prescribed “that in this university shall be given the necessary studies for the following: jurisprudence, canon, medicine, pharmacy, and notary;” and article 12, that, “the branches of medicine and pharmacy, although constituting an integral part of the university, shall be taught in the college of San José, whose revenues, with the deductions of the amounts for pious charges, will be devoted to the expenses of these branches.[42] The five-sixths part of the fees from the registration of these subjects, and half of the fees for degrees, titles, and certificates of the pupils, will also pertain to the college mentioned. The rest will pertain to the general expenses of the university.” The governor was to name a director, upon the recommendation of the rector, for the college, and he was to have charge of the revenues. September 5, 1877, a commission appointed to consider various matters of the college of San José, recommended that the university of Santo Tomás take immediate charge of all the property of the college, and that regulations be drawn up for the management of the same. On September 28, of the same year, the governor-general decreed that an administrative commission consisting of the rector of the university and the professor of pharmacy should take charge of the college, and they were given complete authority to carry out the reorganization of the college decreed in 1875. The report of the commission submitted July 26, 1878, recommended that the office of director-administrator be made two separate offices, the office of director to be filled by the rector of the university of Santo Tomás, as director ex-officio, and that of administrator to be appointed by the governor-general upon the recommendation of the rector of the university of three names to be taken from the professions of medicine and pharmacy. This report was approved August 1 by a decree of the governor-general, which was in turn approved by royal order of March 24, 1880. The decree of August 1, 1878, charged the rector of the university to prepare regulations concerning the control and management of the college; and it appears that such regulations were issued by the governor-general, October 15, 1879, title 2 of which gives to the rector of the university, as ex-officio director, the control of properties and finances of the college. It is said that articles 6–10 of the decree of 1875, which directed that competitive examinations be held either at Manila or Madrid for the filling of vacant professorships, have not been observed, such vacancies having been filled by the governor-general on the recommendation of the rector. The administration of the college properties was kept separate from those of the university, although the accounts were both under the same direction of the rector of the university. The scholarships or fellowships of the college, before twenty in number, were reduced after 1875 to three and transferred to another institution. The income in normal times was about twenty thousand pesos, the foundation seemingly being about one-half million in gold.[43]
With the signing of the treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898, the American government found itself face to face with a delicate and difficult problem, namely, that of the settlement of the properties of the friars. Of this problem, the question of the ultimate disposal of the college of San José was properly a part, since it was under the direction of the Dominican university of Santo Tomás, it having become, as we have seen above, the medical and pharmaceutical adjunct of the university. The question to be solved in this case narrowed down to whether the college of San José was primarily a government or an ecclesiastical pious foundation [obra pia], and hence, whether it could be legally administered by the government or the Church. In 1899, General Otis forbade the rector of the university of Santo Tomás to continue to maintain a school of medicine and pharmacy in the buildings of the college of San José, and to use its name and income for that purpose—an order made at the instance of the president and directors of the Philippine Medical Association. Shortly after their arrival the commissioners were consulted by General McArthur, as to the proper course for him to take on the petition of the rector of the university asking him to rescind the order. As the issue involved the question of the control of Church property, the commission deemed it its duty to investigate it and to bring it to a legal settlement.[44]
The matter was therefore argued before the Commission, pro and con, from time to time between July and October, 1900, and the conclusions announced January 5, 1901. The ecclesiastical authorities took the position that the college is “truly an obra pia, that its trusteeship has always been vested in the Church, as represented by its legal agents either through the Society of Jesus, the kings of Spain as ecclesiastical patron, the clergy of the cathedral, or the university of Santo Tomás, under the direction of the archbishop.” The ecclesiastical argument is that the college “is essentially a religious foundation and therefore the United States have not the right to claim it as public property nor to intervene in its management, since they cannot succeed to the Spanish ecclesiastical patronage, they having proclaimed the separation of Church and State.” It is impossible also for the state to secularize the institution, an act which would be paramount to confiscation.[45] Archbishop Nozaleda argues also that the college “is an ecclesiastical obra pia, founded by Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa, with all the canonical and civil formalities demanded by the legislation in force at that time for such foundation.”[46] Again, he says: “The college of San José is an ecclesiastical obra pia, and as such belongs to the patrimony of the Church.” An ecclesiastical obra pia he defines as “any foundation made through motives of religious piety, or with the purpose of exercising Christian charity, with the approbation and authorization of the bishop.”[47] Against this Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera and others argued before the Philippine Commission that the college of San José was primarily of royal foundation;[48] Felipe G. Calderon, a Filipino advocate, and the chief adversary of the ecclesiastics, in his pamphlets, also argued that the college of San José is official in its origin:[49] their conclusions being that the civil government has power to intervene in the management of the college.[50] The commission, being careful not to intimate any opinion that “should be used by either side in the case to be argued and decided as authority in that tribunal [i.e., the Philippine Supreme Court],” expressed “no other definitive opinion than that the petitioners [i.e., Pardo de Tavera, et al.] have presented a case of sufficient dignity and seriousness to warrant its full consideration by a court of justice.” In the words of the commissioners: “In order to decide the merits of this case, we should probably have to consider and settle a nice question of canonical law, and investigate and discuss the historical and legal relations of the crown of Spain to the head of the Catholic Church. Neither of these questions do we feel competent now to decide with the materials which are before us and with the time at our disposal nor do we need to do so. We are not a court. We are only a legislative body. It is our expressly delegated function in just such cases as this to provide a means for the peaceful and just decision of the issues arising. Had we been able to decide clearly and emphatically that the petitioners had no rights here and that their claims were so flimsy as not to merit the assistance of the legislature in bringing them to adjudication in a court of justice, we might have properly dismissed the petition and taken no action thereon; but we are of opinion, all of us, that the contentions of the petitioners present serious and difficult questions of law, sufficiently doubtful to require that they should be decided by a learned and impartial court of competent jurisdiction, and that it is our duty to make legislative provision for testing the question. If it be true that the United States is either itself the trustee to administer these funds, or occupies the relation of parens patriæ to them, it becomes its duty to provide for their administration by a proper directory, whose first function will be to assert, in the name and authority of the United States, their right to administer the funds of the college against the adverse claims of the person now in charge, who claims to hold under and by virtue of the control over the funds by the Catholic Church; and this legislative action we now propose to take, not thereby intimating an opinion upon the merits of the case, but merely by this means setting in motion the proper machinery for the ultimate decision by a competent tribunal.” The Commission set aside $5,000 in United States money for the payment of the expenses of getting evidence, preparing the record, printing the briefs, and as fees for professional services; and that the case was to be heard before the Philippine Supreme Court, the United States being practically a party in the litigation. Further provision was made in case appeals from that court were to be made to the Supreme Court of the United States, for Congress to so provide in this case. As to the injunctive order of General Otis against the opening of the college, by the rector of the university, it was recommended to the military governor that it be rescinded. The persons appointed to conduct the litigation and to take charge of the college and its estates, should the decision and a decree of the court be in their favor, were as follows: Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera; Dr. Charles R. Greenleaf, Leon M. Guerrero, Dr. Manuel Gomez Martinez, and Dr. Frank S. Bourns. The concluding remarks of the Commission are the following: “There has been much popular and political interest in the controversy in which we have now stated our conclusions. The questions considered, however, have not had any political color at all. They have been purely questions of law and proper legal procedure, and so will they be in the court to which they are now sent. The decision of the right to control San José college cannot legitimately be affected by the political feeling which one may have for or against the friars. It is unfortunate that the public should clothe the settlement of an issue purely legal with political significance when it ought not to have and does not have one. But, however this may be, those charged with settling it can pursue only one path, and that is the path of legal right as they see it.”[51] Congress provided for appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 1902, under the general terms of Section 10 of the so-called “Philippine Government Act.” A decision in the case had not been handed down in Manila up to the close of September, 1906.[52]
[1] See also Colin’s statement regarding the college for 1656, VOL. XXIII, pp. 83, 84; and San Antonio’s brief remarks on the college, in the same volume, pp. 134, 135. [↑]
[2] The congregation of the Virgin, which was promoted by the visitor, Diego Garcia. It was formed from six students on St. Francis’s day, 1600. So many people soon joined that it became necessary to split the congregation into two parts, one of students and the other of laymen, the latter of which had one hundred members in two years. Their objects were charity and devotion. The first to initiate the congregations of the Virgin in the Jesuit order was Juan de León, a Flemish priest, who established the first in the Roman college in 1563, giving it the title of Anunciada. It was given papal approval in 1564. See Colin’s Labor evangélica, pp. 411–413; and Pastells’s Colin, ii, pp. 243–246. [↑]