originally over every action, civil or criminal, which was brought against an ecclesiastic. In 1835, the civil courts were given jurisdiction over cases involving certain atrocious crimes committed by ecclesiastics. For many years the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts was exercised by such of the judges of the Courts of First Instance as were designated as ecclesiastical judges by the Archbishop of Manila and the suffragan bishops of the other dioceses.

Military courts had jurisdiction over offenses purely military and of actions affecting soldiers and other persons having special military privileges.

The Commercial Court, which operated in Manila only, was composed of a number of merchants of credit and respectability known as consuls, but who were advised by lawyers selected for the purpose because of their special knowledge of commercial matters. This court had jurisdiction over all commercial controversies which called for prompt and equitable action without much reference to technical procedure.

There was also a Treasury Court which sat in Manila with jurisdiction over matters which affected the treasury and which involved questions supposed to be within the peculiar knowledge of treasury officials. In 1887 these special treasury and commercial courts were abolished, and their functions, together with a portion of those of the military courts, were transferred to the ordinary courts. The clergy and the members of the army and navy were thereby deprived of many of their special personal privileges. It was intended that the ordinary courts should thereafter be competent to dispose of all civil and criminal cases, but the decree subjecting the clergy to the jurisdiction of the civil courts never became effective, as it was suspended by the governor-general until a decision could be received from the home government. No decision was ever rendered.25 When the civil code went into effect in 1889, the governor-general was authorized to suspend certain titles which 25 Rept. Phil. Com., 1900, Appendix, p. 229.

practically exempted the clergy from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, except in case of atrocious crimes.

There existed also in Manila what was known as the Contentious Court which was an adjunct of the Council of Administration created by the royal decree of July 4, 1861. This body, which was not really a court, was composed of prominent men who heard complaints against the government and from whose decisions there was an appeal to the Council of State in Spain.

Such were the judicial tribunals through which justice was administered. As a rule, the judges were all Spaniards. The procedure, both civil and criminal, followed closely the forms observed in Spain. The evidence all tends to show that the courts were in fact inefficient and that their general administration was very unsatisfactory to the litigants. The substantive law was in general wise and humane and well adapted to conditions, but its administration could not have been much worse. Much of the personnel of the lower courts was bad. Before the separation of the judicial from the executive functions, the alcaldes-mayores, and inferior judges generally, appear to have been notoriously ignorant and often corrupt. Qualifications for their work was rarely a factor in their selection. Tant valent les juges, tant valent les lois is an old and very true maxim.

There were among the magistrados of the audiencia many honest and some learned lawyers who would have honored judicial positions in any country. There was ample technical learning, but almost a complete absence of the executive ability which is necessary for the administrative work of a court. Without it all the learning of the jurisconsults will not, even under a simple and effective method of procedure, prevent the calendars from becoming clogged with cases with the resulting vexatious and expensive delays which amount to the substantial denial of justice.

The procedure in civil actions seems never to have been systematized and established, and the criminal procedure was even more uncertain. 26 The insidious custom of compensating officials

26 The Philippines never had a code of criminal procedure. There were merely scattered provisions in the form of royal orders and autos acordados.

by fees encouraged all manner of unconscionable delays. Thus before a civil action could be commenced in an ordinary trial court the would-be litigant was required to execute a power of attorney authorizing a solicitor to appear for him. This power had then to be acknowledged before a notary, after which it had to be examined and pronounced sufficient by the attorney who was to appear in the case. The intervention of three paid agents, solicitor, notary and attorney, was thus necessary before the litigant could get his case started. Any formal defect in the certificate of the notary, in the power of attorney, or in the declaration of sufficiency, was ground for the dismissal of the action with heavy costs. Worse yet, from a ruling on either of these matters an appeal could be taken to the audiencia, where the litigant would learn whether he was in court. All the documents had to be on stamped paper, and any irregularity in that respect might lead to a ruling from which an appeal would lie. The competency of the judge to try the case might be challenged and an appeal taken from the ruling on that question. Or the jurisdiction of the court might be assailed by inhibitory or declaratory pleas and the foundation laid for another appeal.

All this was mere jockeying for a start. Once off, at every stage of the proceedings interlocutory appeals were possible and usual. Actions were often dismissed on the most trivial grounds and the solicitors' and attorneys' fees taxed against the unfortunate plaintiff. The fees under such circumstances were like damages, in personal injury litigation often punitive, being always much larger than would have been charged the client. Instances of gross extortion under the forms of law were com

mon.

The system made for injustice instead of justice. The procedure seemed to have been skilfully devised to promote delay and increase expense. Business men avoided the courts and settled their controversies or submitted to loss rather than allow themselves to be robbed under the forms of law.27 The divorce

27 Report of the Philippine Commission, 1900, p. 82. Foreman, The Philippine Islands (1906), pp. 239, 241.

between law and justice was absolute. The ordinary Filipino is naturally a contentious person. Next to a cockpit a court room with cocky abogados pitted against each other in the game of technicalities is his ideal place of entertainment. He delights in suing his neighbor and organizing a gang of witnesses to engage in the cheerful game of perjury. In the old days there were always plenty of lawyers to aid and abet him in such enterprises. There was also a sort of legalized banditti, a special class of shysters, known as abogadocillas, or little lawyers, who were recognized as entitled to practise before the justice courts. Because of lack of character or qualifications they had not been regularly admitted to practise in the courts of record and were experts at stirring up strife and encouraging litigation.

The Filipinos realized that the courts as administered were the agencies of extortion and injustice, and their complaints were loud and continuous. The necessity for reforming the procedure of the courts was a matter about which there was no difference of opinion.2

28

28 As to the unsatisfactory state of the administration of justice, see Sawyer, The Inhabitants of the Philippines, Chap. IV.

CHAPTER X

Taxation and Revenue

The Tax System-Direct Taxes-The Tribute-Abolished in 1884-The Cedula Personal-Special Provisions for Chinese-The Income Tax-Indirect Taxes-Customs Duties-Classification of Goods-Rates Levied-Certain Special Charges-Monopolies, Stamps, Cockpits, Lotteries, etc.-The Tobacco Monopoly-Government Receipts and Disbursements.

The system of taxation which the Spaniards established in the Philippines was suitable for the people and the conditions under which they lived. As usual, it was the administration that was at fault. The government raised the money required for its support by direct and indirect taxes, and by trade and other monopolies. As noted by Professor C. C. Plehn2 the feature of the history of taxation in the Philippines is "the continuity in the development of the tax system, the antiquity of its origins, and the skill and care with which it was ever readjusted to the conditions of the times and of the country. The direct taxes which the United States government found in operation at the time of their occupation can all be traced back, with scarcely a break in the line of evolution, to the primitive 'tribute' provided for with such simple logic and stately eloquence in that impressive old law for the Indians written by royal authority in 1523. The indirect taxes in their turn were all evolved from the simple almojarifazgo, whose quaint Moorish name so forcibly suggests its age; while the other revenues, all practically in the form of monopolies, either arose from the assertion of the royal rights to the profits of all trade that might be won by

1 The general opinion is that the burden of taxation was not excessive, Bourne in B. & R., I, Int., p. 85.

Pol. Sci. Quar. XVII, p. 147. This account of the system of taxation is based very largely upon Prof. Plehn's two articles in the Political Science Quarterly, XVI, p. 680 and XVII, p. 125. See also Hords' Internal Taxation (J. U. H. Studies), 1907.