At first glance the Republic of the Philippines might seem a strange case with which to begin a study of the relations between patriarchalism and labour/human rights in Pacific Asia. It is typically regarded as the odd person out in the region. This is because it was a colony for longer than any other territory in the region, is largely Christian, and has often seemed to value its relations with Spain and the United States more highly than those with the rest of Pacific Asia. Finally, although it was second only to Japan as a developing economy in the early 1960s, it is now far less successful economically than most of its neighbours. However, it nevertheless represents an instance of a society in which the hegemonic public discourse has long been and remains a variety of patriarchalism. Moreover, de jure if not, I will argue, de facto the Philippines was the first territory to begin the process of decolonisation and therefore has had the longest experience of democracy in the region. Thus, it also represents the longest established instance of that attempted symbiosis between patriarchalism and the rule of law in the sphere of labour law that is the central concern of the present study. However, the main reason why a discussion of the Philippines is important in the present context is that it represents a limiting case in that it enables one to understand that the exchange that I term ‘enforceable benevolence’ cannot be a costless one for capital if it is to be effective in moderating industrial disruption as well as for the state if it is to be effective in protecting human rights.