PRESIDENTE DEL TRIBUNALE. — He is the magistrate placed at the head of a collegiate tribunal; he is responsible for directing the proceedings and, in general, for adopting the measures necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice in the cases submitted to the tribunal for adjudication.
In addition to these functions, which are strictly connected with the conduct of judicial activity—and which normally belong to anyone who presides over or is placed in charge of a judicial body, even only temporarily or for particular cases—various other administrative duties may be assigned to the p., insofar as he permanently and principally holds the position of head and representative of the tribunal. These duties, relating to responsibility for the regular functioning of the service, the exercise of supervision and disciplinary authority and, in general, hierarchical power over the tribunal’s personnel, etc., are regulated and specified in different ways according to the particular organization of the administration of justice in the various legal systems. In the tribunals of the Catholic Church, the figure of the p., while, in relation to the first of the two categories of functions just mentioned—that is, those more strictly judicial—it conforms in principle to the common principles of procedural law, presents particular characteristics from the administrative and hierarchical point of view, in relation to the special structure of judicial bodies and to the close connection between the exercise of the relevant functions and the other manifestations of ecclesiastical authority (v. GIUDICE ECCLESIASTICO; TRIBUNALI ECCLESIASTICI). It is therefore necessary to distinguish between the ordinary tribunals of first and second instance and the tribunals of the Holy See. Although the bishop, the judge by birth in every diocese for all disputes not reserved to the Holy See, may personally exercise judicial power and therefore, strictly speaking, may himself personally preside over the diocesan tribunal (cann. 1573 § 1, 1578) whenever the law prescribes that judgment must be rendered by a collegiate body, he is nevertheless permitted—and is in fact advised by the law itself—to exercise these functions through the ministry of another person. To this end, it is prescribed that every bishop must appoint an official, possessing ordinary power to judge, distinct in person from the vicar general (except in small dioceses or those having few cases); and vice-officials may be added to him as assistants or substitutes. The official or vice-official, besides judging as a single judge, either alone or assisted by assessors, has precisely the function of presiding over the collegiate tribunal (cann. 1573, 1575, 1577).
The origin of the office of the official in diocesan curias has given rise to interesting historical questions. Until fairly recently, the commonly accepted view was that the institution of the officiales, together with that of the vicar general, was essentially due to the reaction of the bishops in the thirteenth century against the excessive power of the archdeacons, as well as to the fact that the bishops were not personally versed in the new canonical procedural forms that had developed in connection with Roman law (v. DIACONIA). Accordingly, a vicar general, also called officialis principalis, was appointed to reside in the chief city, together with subordinates, officiales foranei, who cooperated more particularly with the archdeacons. The respective areas of competence would then gradually have been divided, administrative management remaining with the vicar and judicial affairs with the officialis. More recently, however, it has been maintained (Fournier) that the office of vicar general, determined not so much by the need to curb the usurpations of the archdeacons as by the absences of the bishops, which became customary after the fourteenth century, had no connection with the officiales, who appear much earlier, namely in the eleventh century, invested with judicial functions. The official, an ordinary judge removable ad nutum, would have gradually concentrated in himself, as the result of a slow evolution, the functions of the ancient presbyterium, eventually little by little absorbing the affairs within the archdeacon’s competence. Whatever view may be taken of the matter, it is certain that after the Council of Trent, which completed the reaction against the archdiaconate while allowing the vicar general to remain, the separation of the exercise of judicial power from that of administrative power between two distinct agents of the bishop became general and was, in principle, expressly sanctioned by the CIC (can. 1573 § 1). Thus, even when, as in Italy, the limited territorial extent of the dioceses allows a single official to combine the discharge of both functions, the offices of vicar general and official, even when held by a single incumbent, remain distinct and independent (cf. can. 1573 §§ 5, 6).
The requirements for appointment as official and vice-official are determined by the CIC as follows: they must be priests of unimpeachable reputation, doctors or experts in canon law, and at least thirty years of age. They are removable ad nutum episcopi and require confirmation when the bishop changes, but they do not cease to exercise their functions, nor may they be removed, during a vacant see. If the same person holds the offices of vicar general and official, during a vacant see he ceases to exercise the functions of vicar, but not those of official. If, however, the same official is elected vicar capitular, he must appoint a new official (can. 1573 § 5, 6, 7). The functions of the official or vice-official, as p. of the collegiate t., consist first of all in the power to issue the measures necessary for the administration of justice in the individual case (can. 1577 § 2), and consequently to direct the conduct of the proceedings, ponente (v.) or relator and replacing him, when necessary (can. 1584), signing the various acts of the case together with the clerk (can. 1643 § 2), ordering, when he deems it appropriate, the printing of the pleadings and documents, and regulating the length of the pleadings themselves (cann. 1863-64), and summoning the judges for deliberation (can. 1871). He also has the power to perform certain preliminary or supplementary acts in the instruction of the case assigned generically by the CIC to the judge (cann. 1712 § 1, 1764 § 1, 1782 § 1, 1915 § 2, etc.), to rule on the exceptio suspicientis brought against the promoter of justice, the defender of the bond, and the other members of the tribunal (can. 1614 § 3); and, according to some authors, also to declare the extinction of the proceedings. In addition to this somewhat summary body of powers belonging to the p. of the collegiate t., as may be inferred from the rules set out separately in the CIC, a more precise definition and enumeration of presidential powers, as regards matrimonial trials, is provided by the Instructio of the S. Congr. for the Discipline of the Sacraments, dated 15 August 1936. These powers are extremely broad with regard to the constitution and citation of the parties, the joinder of issue, the setting of time limits, the taking of acts of instruction, etc. Some of these powers are subject to the condition that the collegiate body does not reserve them to itself (art. 68 § 2); and, in general, an appeal to the collegiate body lies against any act or decree of the p. (art. 69).
The same rules established for diocesan tribunals of first instance concerning the position and functions of the p. or official also apply to appellate tribunals at metropolitan or suffragan sees exercising appellate functions (v. TRIBUNALI ECCLESIASTICI).
As for the tribunals of the Holy See, the S. R. Rota and the Apostolic Signatura, although, given the characteristics of their structure and functioning, they do not present a genuine figure of a president with the usual hierarchical and administrative powers in addition to judicial ones, they are nevertheless directed by bodies that are, within certain limits, comparable to II. Thus, the S. Rota is headed by a dean, who presides over the auditors as primus inter pares (can. 1598). However, since the Rota adjudicates in panels of three auditors (determined in an almost automatic manner by seniority), the panel constituted by each rotation is presided over by the ponens or rapporteur, in the manner and with the powers determined by the special regulations. In the Apostolic Signatura, the directive functions are exercised by one of the cardinals who compose it, and who bears the title and performs the functions of prefect (can. 1602).
The latter acts as sole judge in the so-called « Congress »; whereas in the so-called « full » Signatura (plenary session), all the cardinals composing the tribunal take part. Here too, special rules are laid down, together with the fundamental norms established by the CIC.