A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems JUDICIAL YUAN INTERPRETATION NO. 603 AND BLAS F. OPLE V. RUBEN TORRES AND OTHERS 18. The other two national court judgments referenced throughout this guide are Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 60326 decided by the Judicial Yuan of Taiwan in 2005 and Blas F. Ople v. Ruben Torres and others27 decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 1998. In both instances, the courts – the highest in each respective jurisdiction – rejected proposed national identity systems because of privacy concerns.28 The proposed systems would have linked national identity cards with the provision of public services.29 Although the two judgments are shorter and less comprehensive than the more recent judgments, they provide additional useful support for several of the arguments developed in this guide. 19. Thus far, there has been little engagement with national identity systems by international and regional courts. Despite the inclusion of impacted rights in international human rights treaties (which are also referenced sparingly in national court judgments), there are no judgments evaluating the implications of national identity systems under the international human rights framework. Nevertheless, some relevant jurisprudence does exist for understanding the implications of biometrics more generally, including the European Court of Justice decision in Michael Schwarz v. Stadt Bochum30 from 2013. In that case, the court reviewed the requirement of collection of 26 Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 603, Taiwan, Holding (2005). 27 Blas F. Ople v. Ruben Torres and others, Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 127685 (1998). 28 See Judicial Yuan Interpretation; Blas F. Ople, Part III at 5. 29 See Judicial Yuan Interpretation; Blas F. Ople, Part III at 5. 30 Michael Schwarz v. Stadt Bochum, ECJ C-291/12 (2013). 14