The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies Part 5

The governor awarded jurisdiction to the audiencia. The consulado re-appealed the case, but the Council sustained the governor's decision on the ground that this was a suit between a private individual and a merchant which should be tried in the audiencia, the tribunal which usually tried cases between individuals. The function of the consulado, the royal decree stated, was to try suits of a commercial character which arose between merchants. [187]

An occasion on which the jurisdiction of the audiencia was unquestioned may be noted in the suit which was appealed to the Council of the Indies from the audiencia in 1698, over the wrecking of the galleon "San Francisco Xavier". The admiral, Don Esteban Ramos, was held accountable for the silver carried on the s.h.i.+p and the merchants of Manila sued him for what they had lost in the wreck. [188] It was charged that Ramos had landed the silver, but was seeking to conceal that fact, claiming instead that it was lost. The case was appealed to the Council by the defendant. [189] The Council referred the case to the Junta de Guerra, [190] and that tribunal reversed the decision of the audiencia, declaring that Ramos was a faithful servant of His Majesty, and still a poor man. There was no possibility of his having the silver. Ramos was transferred to the Atlantic flota. [191] The royal fiscal, in the opinion rendered for the guidance of the junta, made the comment that frequently the oidores of colonial audiencias were influenced, against their own ideas of justice, by the opinions and wishes of the most powerful residents. Such was possibly the case in Manila on this occasion. This statement at least shows that those in control at Madrid were aware of some of the fundamental weaknesses of the colonial audiencias.

Another typical case, indirectly connected with commerce, occurred in 1713, when the fiscal of the audiencia prosecuted three captains, Enrique Boynont, Fernando Gall and Diego Brunet, who had arrived at Cavite in command of French merchant and exploring s.h.i.+ps, without the royal permission to trade in the Islands. These captains, who were foreigners, of course, were charged with smuggling, and were brought before the royal audiencia. The charges against them were not proved, and in due time the cases were dismissed. [192] The laws of the Indies authorized the governor and the alcaldes del crimen to try cases of strangers, [193] but in Manila, where there were no magistrates of this category, such cases were tried by the audiencia.

Perhaps the most important commercial suit that was ever tried in the Audiencia of Manila, came before that tribunal in 1656, when several residents of Mexico were excluded from the use of the galleon and their goods confiscated. This action was in accordance with repeated cedulas and regulations which reserved the s.p.a.ce in the galleon for the exclusive use of the Manila merchants and authorities. Mexican traders, who had from time to time s.h.i.+pped goods on the galleons, were forbidden to crowd out the Manila merchants, who depended on that trade exclusively. The fine levied on this occasion amounted to 273,133 pesos. The case was appealed to the Council of the Indies, the aforesaid decision was upheld, and the sum was finally ordered paid in Mexico. [194]

During the greater part of the audiencia's existence there was no consulado in Manila and the jurisdiction of the audiencia in commercial cases extended to suits between merchants for s.p.a.ce on the galleon. The tribunal had jurisdiction over the trial of officials for dishonesty in the a.s.signment of galleon s.p.a.ce: investigations of officials charged with reserving more than their due share of s.p.a.ce, and such other cases as are mentioned in the laws of the Indies as being the concern of the consulados of Lima and Mexico. [195] Officers of the galleons were tried for mistreating seamen, for smuggling, for exceeding the limit of merchandise allowed, for giving pa.s.sage to lewd women and to persons travelling on the galleons without permission. They were tried for carrying more slaves than they were allowed by law to carry, for charging exorbitant prices of pa.s.sage, and for failing to turn in accounts of money collected. Commanders were often held criminally responsible for carelessness in navigation and for s.h.i.+pwrecks. These cases were tried in the tribunal of the consulado after 1769.

The audiencia had appellate jurisdiction over all residents of the colony, both natives and Spaniards. All crimes committed within five leagues of the city of Manila were ordered to be tried by the oidores in first instance, [196] but unless they were of extraordinary importance, special investigators, usually alcaldes mayores or alcaldes ordinarios, were delegated to try them in the name of the audiencia. [197] As already stated, most of the criminal cases arising in the colony were tried in first instance in the provinces by the alcaldes mayores. Cases appealed to the audiencia were reviewed in that tribunal. The trial consisted of an examination of the summary or abstract of the case as it was originally tried by the lower judge and, if errors were found to exist, the decision was either reversed or the case was remanded to the judge who first had tried the case, for second trial. [198] The audiencia did not try the case with the defendant present. It merely reviewed the proceedings of the lower judge. Criminal cases were not ordinarily appealable to the Council of the Indies.

The procedure in criminal cases was generally so similar to that already described that it is unnecessary to give any ill.u.s.tration of the audiencia's criminal jurisdiction. Most of the cases that eventually reached the audiencia involved Spaniards, native caciques, and half-castes. Natives who were charged with robbery, murder, and crimes of a depraved nature were usually of a cla.s.s unable to finance appeals to the audiencia. This fact probably accounts for the scarcity of criminal cases appealed during the first two centuries of the audiencia's existence. [199] However, the reforms of the nineteenth century brought an increased number of cases into the audiencia by systematizing the administration of justice, differentiating the judges.h.i.+ps from administrative offices, and providing for greater facility of appeal. [200]

It is probable that in criminal as well as in civil cases, Spaniards derived considerable benefit from the fact that the audiencia was composed of magistrates of their own nationality. High officials, no doubt, escaped the consequences of their misdeeds more easily than did men of more modest social and political attainments. This is shown by the well-known case of the murder by Governor Fajardo of his wife on July 21, 1621; this came up before an audiencia which was composed of judges who were largely under the governor's domination. The tribunal gave the matter a cursory investigation, after which the governor was allowed to go unpunished. [201] We shall see that proceedings were different, however, when officials under investigation were charged with offenses against the government. The residencia, which dealt with such charges, was a pitiless form of inquisition in which the officiating magistrate was in duty bound to find his victim guilty, if possible.

Criminal cases of a character slightly different from those described above were prosecuted by the government for the infraction of any governmental regulation, or for the evasion of the payment of taxes or duties. The collection of revenues devolved upon the oficiales reales and they were ordered to accomplish their duties in this particular, if possible, without the a.s.sistance of the courts. [202]

Numerous cases did come up in the audiencia, however, involving the prosecution of individuals for violations of the alcabala, quinto, and the tax on the export of silver (comisos). Persons a.s.sisting in the apprehension of violators of these laws were rewarded with a part of the proceeds of the fine, the remainder becoming the property of real hacienda. On October 6, 1783, the final jurisdiction in cases of smuggling and non-payment of the king's fifth was taken from the audiencia, appeals being authorized to the Council of the Indies. [203]

Reference has already been made to the services of an oidor as special auditor de guerra. This, as well as other matters relating to the jurisdiction of the governor and captain-general over military matters, wherein the audiencia had no authority, will be noted when an examination is made of the relations of the governor and audiencia in a subsequent chapter. Suffice it to say here that the audiencia did not have jurisdiction as a court over soldiers or military affairs.

Closely related to the subject of the defense of the Islands, and the exercise of judicial authority over soldiers was the special jurisdiction which the governor had over matters relating to the Chinese. This subject will be treated in greater detail when we discuss the relations of the audiencia and the governor.

During the first two centuries of its existence the audiencia had jurisdiction as a judicial tribunal in the cases and instances which have been noted. It had civil and criminal authority, original and appellate. Its decisions were final in civil suits on claims for six thousand pesos or less. Criminal cases were settled in the audiencia.

The judicial authority of the audiencia was impeded during the greater part of its history by the failure of the government to entrust it with complete jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters, and by the tendency of the latter to interfere in matters of minute and insignificant detail, which should have been left to the magistrates of the tribunal. The Const.i.tution of 1812 and the reforms made in pursuance thereof really effected the changes which had long been needed. The audiencia's jurisdiction was made final in all civil suits and increased in administrative cases; thereafter no appeals were made to the Council of the Indies unless they involved administrative law. Cases involving official dishonesty, incapacity, residencia, pesquisas, treason, disputes between audiencias and other tribunals over conflicts of jurisdiction, and questions of the interpretation of the law were still carried to Spain. These were important steps for the improvement of colonial judicial procedure; they served to simplify it, preventing a multiplicity of cases from being carried to Spain which should have been settled within the colony. These tardy reforms left to the home government more time in which to occupy itself with questions of governmental policy, leaving to the audiencias more authority and responsibility in purely judicial matters, thus giving to them a greater prestige in the commonwealths wherein they were situated.

The qualifications for the magistracy were also raised at this time, although it cannot be said that the magistrates of the audiencias were at any time incompetent or lacking in ability. The audiencias of the colonies were given equal status with those of the Peninsula, and were thus elevated in dignity and standing to the rank of tribunals of the first order. The chief defects of the colonial judicial system of the seventeenth century were thus corrected, though somewhat tardily. It is unfortunate indeed that these changes applied only to a mere skeleton of Spain's former colonial empire.

In this chapter we have discussed the audiencia as a formal court of justice, with methods, practices, and traditions little different from those of any tribunal of justice. However, it had judicial authority more extensive and far-reaching than has yet been indicated. Among the different kinds of cases over which the audiencia had jurisdiction, perhaps none was more important, and certainly none was more exclusively peculiar to the Spanish judicial system than suits of residencia. So distinct and extraordinary was that phase of judicial activity that it merits consideration apart from a discussion of the audiencia's functions as an ordinary court of law. In the following section we shall note its jurisdiction as an administrative court over suits wherein the government was a party and wherein the object was not only to punish offenders, but to act as a preventive of official misconduct.

CHAPTER IV

JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AUDIENCIA; THE RESIDENCIA [204]

The purpose of the residencia was to uphold the morale of colonial service by making officials answer for all their acts in a judicial examination held at the close of their terms. It may be said that the fear of the residencia was almost the sole incentive to righteous official conduct or efficient public service, and it will be seen that the audiencia exercised very p.r.o.nounced authority in this. Indeed, the audiencia had general supervision in a semi-judicial capacity over the services of officials and public servants in the colonies. It was the function of the audiencia to send reports to the court relative to the conduct, work, or att.i.tude of any employee or official of the government, or of any resident of the colony. These reports were known as informaciones (pareceres) de servicio. [205] The tribunal itself was ready at all times to hear complaints against provincial governors and judges, treasury officials, magistrates, governors, or, in fact, any and all officials holding their positions by virtue of the king's commission. [206] Charges might be made by a wronged party or by anyone whose knowledge of an abuse was sufficient to justify charges. Heavy penalties were imposed upon persons making false or unsubstantiated charges. [207] Complaints against alcaldes mayores and corregidores were most likely to be made during the regular investigation of the visiting oidor, which, as we have noted, occurred every three years, but sufficient complaint might be made to justify the dispatch of a special investigator at any time. [208]

The findings of the above inspections might be reviewed by the audiencia and lead to the suspension and dismissal of the official under investigation. [209] The final action had to be confirmed by the Council of the Indies in case the person concerned were a royal appointee, but in these matters the action of the local officials was usually approved. For the removal of oidores and oficiales reales a slightly different method was pursued. A magistrate of the audiencia was designated to investigate the case, the evidence was submitted to the Council of the Indies and final action was taken by it and not by the audiencia. [210] Any and all charges brought against an official in these investigations, even though he were cleared at the time, might be revived in the residencia.

Suspensions from office were made by the governor with the advice and consent of the audiencia. The governor had the legal right to make temporary removals, but on account of the seriousness of such an act, and the considerations depending upon it, he usually preferred to have the support of the magistrates in the matter. The governor, as vicepatron, could suspend prelates and other church officials, but he seldom, if ever, exercised his powers to the full extent. The audiencia at Manila, on the other hand, actually drove the archbishop from the city on various occasions. The suspension and the removal of members of the ordinary clergy from their districts was a frequent occurrence, but churchmen were not subject to residencia. The audiencia had no authority to suspend or remove the governor, though the magistrates could and frequently did bring charges against the governor which led to his dismissal. Governors actually suspended and removed oidores at times, though such acts were protested as violations of the law which authorized only the Council of the Indies to remove these officials.

Briefly, the procedure in making these removals was as follows: the governor and audiencia investigated the conduct of an official whenever circ.u.mstances demanded it; the latter was either suspended and recommended for removal, such recommendations being made by the audiencia to the governor or to the Council of the Indies, according to the rank of the official, or the tribunal could make the removal itself. [211] If exception to the action of the audiencia were taken, all the papers relative to the case were forwarded to the Council of the Indies, and if good reasons were found to exist for the action of the lower court the Council approved its action. [212] This, was not the residencia as usually considered.

Of the various authorities at our disposal, Bancroft gives the most acceptable characterization of the residencia. He defines it as an examination held, or an account taken, of the official acts of an executive or judicial official within the province of his jurisdiction during the term of his inc.u.mbency. This, Bancroft says, was done at the expiration of the term of office or at stated periods, or, in case of malfeasance, at any time. [213] The principle underlying the inst.i.tution of the residencia was bequeathed to the Spaniards by the Romans, being similar to and probably derived from their law which gave the right of accusation to any Roman citizen against an office-holder. The residencia was conducted by a judicial official, and it combined the features of a general survey of the career of the official under investigation, an auditing of his accounts and a formal trial. Its purpose was to ascertain whether or not the official had faithfully executed his duties and it served to clear him if he were proved honest, giving him a clean certificate of recommendation. If he were found guilty of official misconduct or dishonesty he was apprehended, degraded, and punished, according to his deserts.

Professor Bourne has written in regard to the residencia:

The residencia ... was an inst.i.tution peculiar in modern times of the Spanish colonial system. It was designed to provide a method by which officials could be held to strict accountability for all acts during their term of office.... To allow a contest in the courts involving the governor's powers during his term of office would be subversive of his authority. He was then to be kept in bounds by realizing that a day of judgment was impending, when everyone, even the poorest Indian, might in perfect security bring forward his accusation. In the Philippines the residencia for a governor lasted six months and was conducted by his successor and all the charges made were forwarded to Spain.... The Italian traveller Gemelli Careri who visited Manila in 1696 characterizes the governor's residencia as a "dreadful Trial", the strain of which would sometimes "break their hearts."

Professor Bourne stated that it was the opinion of De Pons that "the severities of the residencia could be mitigated, and no doubt such was the case in the Philippines. By the end of the eighteenth century the residencia seems to have lost its efficacy." [214]

It is important to note at the outset that the residencia was not conducted periodically alone, but that it might be held at any time in the career of an official. The term pesquisa was applied to the form of residencia which was carried out by a special investigator (pesquisidor), sent when serious charges were made against the conduct of an official. [215] In the investigation which took place the official might be fined, or if grave offenses were proved, he might be removed from office. Appeals might be made from the pesquisidor to the audiencia and to the Council of the Indies. In fact, the judgments of the pesquisidor were always reviewed in the local tribunal unless the investigating judge had been commissioned by the Council of the Indies.

The distinction which has been made here between the formal residencia which occurred at the close of the term of office and the pesquisa which might take place whenever serious charges were made, was first emphasized in laws promulgated by Charles V in 1538, and by Philip II in 1591; these aimed to put a stop to the excesses of certain governors, corregidores, and ministers of justice, who, relying on the practice then prevailing of taking residencias only at the close of the official term, had committed unlimited excesses. The new laws, above referred to, stated that although it had never been the royal wish that residencias of royal appointees should be taken without notice having been sent first to the monarch, the above circ.u.mstances had made it necessary for them to be taken when charges were made. This cedula, therefore, authorized the taking of residencias whenever the best interests of the service required it. [216]

This cedula was followed by another which forbade the sending of special investigators or judges of residencia against governors of provinces, unless persons of responsible character presented charges against them, giving bonds to cover the costs. An investigator was thereupon sent to conduct the trial of the official under examination. [217] This matter is covered in slightly different terms in the law of June 19, 1620. According to that enactment, a receptor [218] might be sent to conduct the preliminary investigations of corregidores and ordinary justices when these demanded instant attention and could not await the formal residencia. If, as a result of this inquiry, the guilt of the official seemed apparent, a more complete investigation was made by a judge appointed by the president and audiencia in acuerdo. [219]

The authority to determine whether cases merited investigation or not and whether an inquiry should be made, belonged to the acuerdo, while the designation of the judge rested with the governor. [220]

The judges sent on these missions were not at first authorized to pa.s.s final sentence, their decisions being subject to review in the audiencia before execution. However, by the law of May 5, 1576, this added authority was bestowed upon the oidores who conducted special investigations, or residencias. [221] Appeals might be made to the audiencia and, if the sentence imposed the death penalty or permanent removal from office, the appeal might be carried to the Council of the Indies. [222] The final approval of the Council was required before action could be taken with regard to any royal appointee, except in those cases wherein the fine did not exceed one thousand pesos. [223]

The oidores, it seems, did not always act as impartial judges when entrusted with these investigations; they were often influenced by the extra reward obtained for these services, and frequently by prejudice against the officials under investigation. Such were the charges implied by Governor Fajardo in 1619 when he wrote:

It is always to be believed that the auditors (oidores) to whom the inquiries are entrusted, ought to make them, not only as judges, but as interested parties, so that sinister inquiries should not be sent to your Majesty's royal Council to defraud your royal treasury and the merits of those who have served well. I a.s.sure your Majesty that I have heard that many inquiries have been made with less justification than might be advisable. [224]

A typical ill.u.s.tration of the jurisdiction of the audiencia in an investigation of this sort, and of the delay to which the minor officials were subjected, is shown in the case of Antonio Pimentel, governor of the Marianas, [225] whose residencia was taken in the decade following 1711. In this case may be seen the distinction between the formal residencia, conducted at the close of the regular term of office, and an investigation of charges brought during the inc.u.mbency of the official. This case ill.u.s.trates both forms of investigation, for it originated in a charge of treason brought against Pimentel, who, it was said, had furnished food and water to the crews of two English vessels, enemies of Spain, and subsequently these same s.h.i.+ps had captured the galleon, "Nuestra Senora de la Encarnacion". The conduct of the case was given to magistrate Torralba, who, on his arrival at Guam, sent Pimentel in chains to Manila. Notwithstanding his defense of ignorance of a state of war existing between Spain and England, he was sentenced to the forfeiture of the bonds which he had posted on a.s.suming office, and in addition was deprived of his position as governor at Guam. This sentence was rendered January 23, 1712, and was approved by the audiencia in review on July 24, 1714. [226] The tribunal sentenced Pimentel to prison and ordered that his residencia should be taken; accordingly, an examination was made of all his official acts as governor. Pimentel, therefore, had not only to stand investigation for the particular act which had brought about his removal, but he was also subjected to a residencia covering his entire career as governor. It may be noted that the two forms of investigation were separate and distinct on this occasion.

Owing to the death of Governor Lizarraga, to the imprisonment of Oidor Villa, and to the state of anarchy surrounding the administration of Torralba as governor, Pimentel was forced to languish in prison several years while he waited residencia. The appointment of Luis de Tagle as his successor and judge of residencia was dated June 25, 1717. This occasion was one on which the successor of a governor took his predecessor's residencia, owing, the commission said, to the distance and the irregularity of communication between Manila and Guam. A letter of the audiencia, dated August 9, 1718, advised the governor that there were 427 unfinished cases on the docket of the tribunal, and chief among those that ought to be decided without delay was the review of the residencia of Pimentel; it was added that there seemed to be no prospect that a boat could get to Guam before 1719. The record of the termination of this case probably reposes somewhere in the archives, tied in an aged, yellow packet, bound by Spanish red tape.

In summary, it may be said that there were two kinds of investigations of official conduct, one taken at the completion of the regular term of office and the other at any time when the needs of the service required it. They both had the same ultimate purpose of holding officials responsible for misconduct in office, of giving to all persons an opportunity of having justice done to them and of deterring office-holders from future misdeeds.

Practically all of the colonial officials were subject to residencia. The most sensational and widely known residencias were, of course, those of viceroys and captains-general, but oidores, treasury officials, encomenderos, alcaldes mayores, corregidores, admirals, generals, captains, and constructors of galleons were likewise examined in this way. [227] The visitors and special investigators who were sent to examine the government of the provinces and the state of the Indians on the encomiendas were also subject to residencia. Residencias were exacted of all minor officials at the same time that their superiors were examined. [228] Clerks, notaries, secretaries, alcaldes ordinarios, regidores, and other officials of a minor category were investigated at the same time that the governor was examined, an alcalde or an oidor being delegated by the new president to review their official conduct. The examination of these minor officials seems to have become more and more perfunctory and there was a tendency during the latter part of the nineteenth century to continue them in office, even without investigation. When, for instance, Governors Basco y Vargas and Marquina gave up their offices this formality was omitted. [229] The practice of taking the residencias of minor officials was definitely abandoned on August 24, 1799, and a rigid inspection by the audiencia of their official acts was authorized. [230]

Much contradictory legislation appears in the laws of the Indies relative to the method of taking residencias; this due to the reforms made from time to time. These laws were formulated for a growing empire. A chronological review of them will show that the residencia was at first more or less of an experiment. Indeed, all the colonial inst.i.tutions were in the early periods pa.s.sing through an experimental stage and these seemingly contradictory laws were promulgated or repealed, according to their success or failure when put into effect. Whenever, therefore, two laws appear to be in conflict, the one of later date will be found to supersede and repeal the earlier one. [231] In ill.u.s.tration of this characteristic of the laws of the Indies we may note the following example: The cedula of December 4, 1630, ordered that the residencia of the governor should be taken by his successor. This law was seldom, if ever, observed. Owing to the distance from Spain and New Spain, and the consequent length of time consumed in voyages, to the unhealthful climate, and to the dangerous military campaigns in which the governors were compelled to engage, death frequently intervened before the successor of a governor arrived. These conditions (which were characteristic of all of Spain's colonies) did not prevent the residencia from being taken, but caused the law to be modified by the cedula of December 28, 1667, according to which judges for the residencias of viceroys and presidents-governor and captains-general were to be designated by the court. The period of four months, which had been authorized for the taking of residencias by the cedula of August 30, 1582, was extended to six months. [232] A change was necessary, the new law declared, in order to put a stop to the incessant strife, and the malice which had been shown by viceroys, governors, and ministers in the taking of residencias. The king determined that henceforth the judge of residencias should be designated by the court. The magistrate usually named was the decano. After 1776 the regent almost invariably conducted these investigations. The important reform of August 24, 1799, ordered that judges of residencia for governors, viceroys, presidents, governors-intendant, corregidor-intendants, and presidents of the Council of the Indies should be appointed by the king. [233]

The first residencia to be conducted in the Philippines in accordance with the new law of November 28, 1667, was that of Governor Salcedo, in 1670. This governor had been removed by the commissary of the Inquisition on October 10, 1668, and Francisco Coloma, the decano, was ordered to take his residencia. [234] Coloma's intervention in the matter was protested by the audiencia in a letter to the Council of the Indies, dated April 7, 1670, on the grounds that the senior oidor was also the asesor and possible successor of the governor, and for that reason he was disqualified from taking the latter's residencia. [235]

The audiencia suspended the proposed action of Coloma, pending the reply of the Council of the Indies. In addition to the protest of the audiencia, the fiscal, on May 20, 1670, sent a report of the case to the court, which act was in fulfillment of his regular duties as fiscal, as prescribed by the laws of the Indies. [236]

The notes from Manila were effective in bringing about the desired results. Upon receipt of the communications, the Council of the Indies, on June 17, 1671, ordered the nullification of all former cedulas, cancelled Coloma's appointment to take the residencia in question, on the grounds that he had been the governor's asesor, and appointed Fernando de Montemayor, the oidor next in rank, to conduct the residencia of the governor. [237] Salcedo had already been dead three years, and two more transpired before his residencia was completed and the autos thereof reviewed by the Council.

The laws provided ample opportunity for appeal in cases of residencia. The cedula of November 17, 1526, ordered that appeals might be made to the Council of the Indies from judges of residencia in cases involving liabilities in excess of 600 pesos. [238] Many appeals were made to the Council in accord with this law, and the time of the tribunal was consumed in the consideration of matters comparatively of small importance. To obviate this defect the law was changed on August 7, 1568, to provide that no case could be appealed to the Council of the Indies unless the sentence imposed capital punishment or deprivation of office. [239] The cedula of June 23, 1608, ordered that if the fine imposed upon the governor and ministers of the Philippines did not exceed one thousand pesos the case should be finished in the audiencia. [240] Cases involving a greater amount were to be appealed to the Council. Sentence of judges of residencia were not to be executed pending the trial of appeals to the audiencia and the Council of the Indies. [241]

Philip IV initiated further reforms in regard to appeal in 1636. Ordenanza LVI, promulgated at that time, provided that "the said Council [of the Indies] may only have jurisdiction over the visits and residencias of the viceroys, presidents, oidores, and officials of our audiencias and accountants and officials of the tribunals of accounts, officials of the treasury and those of the governors provided by the Council with our t.i.tles." [242] Ordenanza LXII, issued at the same time, ordered that "in the visits and residencias which are seen and determined in our Council of the Indies," cases did not have to be referred to the king for consultation, excepting when, in "the residencias of viceroys, presidents, and oidores, alcaldes del crimen, and fiscales of our royal audiencias of the Indies and governors of the princ.i.p.al provinces there, condemnations of corporal punishment, privation or suspension from office result against them." [243]

In these cases the Council was ordered to submit its decisions and all papers bearing thereon to the king before pa.s.sing judgment, so that the final judgment might be rendered by the sovereign in person. The Council could take final action in the residencias of military and naval officials without consulting the king. It was, of course, impossible for the sovereign to give his personal attention to any of these matters, but the last word was p.r.o.nounced in these suits by responsible ministers of the court who stood high in the royal estimation.

Officials were usually obliged to submit to residencia before leaving the colony, also before their promotion to higher posts. [244] Owing, however, to the paucity of s.h.i.+ps plying to New Spain and to the length of time elapsing between sailing dates, officials could give bonds and leave before the residencia was completed. [245] This was permitted only to men of good character, whose services had been uniformly satisfactory, and who were destined to some other post wherein their services were indispensable. The investigation was then conducted in the absence of the official concerned. [246] It was decreed by the cedula of December 30, 1776, that an annual deduction of one-fifth of the total salary of the governors and viceroys respectively should be made, until sufficient money had been taken out to cover the probable costs and liabilities of their residencias. [247] This was a special a.s.sessment, distinct from the media anata, [248] and the money deducted thereby was to be returned if nothing detrimental were proved in the residencia. The last year's salaries of alcaldes mayores and corregidores were withheld, pending investigations of their official conduct and a rendering of accounts of collections made by them. [249]

If an official were cleared of all guilt, the money which had been withheld was returned and the costs of residencia were defrayed by the royal treasury. [250] In case the official were found guilty of misconduct, he had to forfeit his deposits, back-salary, bonds, and frequently to pay a large fine in addition. The amount of the penalty, of course, depended on the extent of the guilt. It may be said that in the Philippines the royal treasury suffered no serious embarra.s.sment through having to bear costs of residencia.

The judges of residencia who served as such in addition to their regular duties, received an additional compensation which varied according to the place where the residencia was held, its distance from the capital, and other circ.u.mstances. [251] This was modified by a reform of the nineteenth century which awarded extra pay only in the case the official were fined. This, of course, was intended to afford the examining judge a stimulating interest in the case. Still later the system of giving extra pay for residencias was abolished. [252]