A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems d) The Supreme Court of the Philippines did not employ a proportionality framework like this, but the court emphasised the absence of safeguards in finding that the state’s objectives in instituting an identity system did not justify the system’s infringement on privacy.157 The Philippine court would require a compelling state interest and proper safeguards;158 a similar but conceptually different standard. 45. The “bread v. freedom�� argument, where derogations of individual rights are justified by improved access to basic needs, does not justify an identity system’s infringement of the right to privacy because privacy rights and economic rights are not mutually exclusive. The state must protect both rights. a) The dissent in the Aadhaar judgment specifically makes this argument, finding that the state has failed to demonstrate why the Aadhaar system’s benefits to the welfare scheme require the system’s infringements on privacy.159 157 Blas F. Ople, Part III at 6. 158 Blas F. Ople, Part III at 6. 159 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 254 of dissent. 39