authenticated, the divorce between petitioner and respondent was validly obtained according to respondent's national law. V The Office of the Solicitor General, however, posits that divorce by agreement is not the divorce contemplated in Article 26 of the Family Code, which provides: Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.[58] (Emphasis supplied) Considering that Article 26 states that divorce must be "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse," the Office of the Solicitor General posits that only the foreign spouse may initiate divorce proceedings. In a study on foreign marriages in 2007 conducted by the Philippine Statistics Authority, it was found that "marriages between Filipino brides and foreign grooms comprised 5,537 or 66.7 percent while those between Filipino grooms and foreign brides numbered 152 or 1.8 percent of the total marriages outside the country."[59] It also found that "[a]bout four in every ten interracial marriages (2,916 or 35.1%) were between Filipino brides and Japanese grooms." Statistics for foreign marriages in 2016 shows that there were 1,129 marriages between Filipino men and foreign women but 8,314 marriages between Filipina women and foreign men. [60] Thus, empirical data demonstrates that Filipino women are more likely to enter into mixed marriages than Filipino men. Under Philippine laws relating to mixed marriages, Filipino women are twice marginalized. In this particular instance, it is the Filipina spouse who bears the burden of this narrow interpretation, which may be unconstitutional. Article II, Section 14 of our Constitution provides: Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. This constitutional provision provides a more active application than the passive orientation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution does, which simply states that no person shall "be denied the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection, within the context of Article III, Section 1 only provides that any legal burden or benefit that is given to men must also be given to women. It does not require the State to actively pursue "affirmative ways and means to battle the patriarchy-that complex of political, cultural, and economic factors that ensure women's disempowerment." [61] In 1980, our country became a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).[62] Under Articles 2(f) and S(a) of the treaty, the Philippines as a state party, is required: Article 2 .... (f) to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women; .... Article 5 .... (a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women[.]