Three positive points about the study: 1) It critiques the Labor Code and puts the democratic and

constitutional rights of the people at the forefront. 2) It is a pioneering research in this field. There is not much literature with regard to the domestic labor sector. 3) It is practical in that it is an applied research: findings will be used to solve practical problems in the labor sector. What is worthy to note in this study is that it takes the notion of national interest, which is typically taken in a realist context of international relations, into the realm of domestic labour conditions. It is not a wrong perspective but an interesting take in fact that actually needs attention. This is such considering that one is bound to find literature on national interest connected to foreign policies and realist thinkers, most especially Hans Morgenthau. (Assimilating realist definition of national interest with Marions definition) Now, realist thinkers frame national interest in the sense that external interests and relations reinforce internal purposes.1 Morgenthau maintains that interest is always defined as power, and he goes on further stating that national interest is seen in the statesman taking up his official duty.2 As I see it, this is where Ms. Sevilla rightly contextualizes her study: national interest as she puts forward becomes a justification for the exercise of the statesmans duty, particularly the Labor Secretarys emergency power or the Assumption of Jurisdiction. And this justification finds root in protecting the national economy, a.k.a. the common good. Strikes and lockouts are deemed not suitable for the economy, and thus the Secretary assumes emergency powers to save the economy. But he does not end here. She invites us to critique this very provision: is national interest actually manifest in how this emergency power is exercised? What does national interest actually mean in terms of practice of the Labor Secretary?

1 2

Greg Russel. Hans J. Morgenthau and the National Interest. Society. January/February 1994 Hans J. Morgenthau. Six Principles of Political Realism

(Theory) These are great questions to ask especially as the study takes on a qualitative method, heavy on content analysis, in examining empirical evidences to support her claims. An explicit (theoretical) framework, however, is greatly needed to guide the study and tie things up. I think an interpretevist approach to defining national interest will be of help. Interpretivism focuses on the hermeneutic (interpretation of written texts) interpretation of lived social experience3 in the case of this study, analyzing laws, policies, and jurisprudence. More importantly, this approach is historical in the sense that it situates or puts people and events back in history. In other words, social experience is understood in a historical progression which the current study of Mr. Sevilla attempts to do as he starts from the Martial Law period and ends with the Arroyo administration. Not that the study has no cohesion; the study actually implicitly makes use of the interpretivist approach (as it takes on a historical perspective and uses hermeneutics). By being clear about it, however, we can come up with more questions for analysis that go beyond questions about the effectiveness of legal measures.4 One possibility would be: is the Assumption of Jurisdiction articulated as national interest or perhaps just mere individual preference? Especially in the Philippines, one cannot help but look into corruption issues in ones analysis. Intrepretavism considers individuals as coming from their own contexts or having their own background. If their socialization with other actors highlights their individualistic interests, national interest then perhaps becomes only a pretense for individualistic objectives. With that said, thank you.

3 4

Formal or informal interactions among people Although you mentioned that you wanted to be objective in your analysis, I think looking into personal interests will give much more character and substance to your study.