CIA World Fact Book

RC: There are a couple of positive developments, thou. Sir, we're seeing military reform moving forward at a very deliberate pace. We're also seeing some successes in cracking down on corruption as well. Let's talk first about cracking down on corruption. How important is that in terms of getting people united behind a single goal?

Ramos: What needs to be shown, at the very outset in a new administration is examples of political will, and reforming the setup, if it is failing or abusive, or corrupt. Giving an example, when I came in, in 1992, the Philippine National Police was a new organization; it had just been separated from the armed forces of the Philippines and put in under a new department of the cabinet called the Department of Interior and Local Government. And that's where the national police really belong, under our 1987 constitution. Well, I called the incumbent chief of the National Police at that time, who was my colleague, my junior officer in the old Armed Forces and I said very clearly: "Chief, I'm not going to reappoint you, will you please take out your retirement papers, go on leave, and for your peace of mind I'm going to ask the same thing of the 59 other senior police officers, generals and colonels below you, so that we can introduce a fresh kind of leadership in this new organization called the Philippine National Police." It used to be called, as you may recall, the Philippine Constabulary Integrated National Police, which I commanded for 14 years, so I knew, more or less, what was inside the organization.

RC: And why was that important, to make that gesture?

Ramos: Because of public perception about lack of efficiency, and especially because of some abusive and corrupt practices within the organization.

RC: Let's talk a little bit about military reform. The Philippine military is getting additional training to deal with counter-terrorism. They have been going after erring officers. We see two generals who are on trial now, what do you make of all this, as a former military man, how would you assess the state of the Philippine military now, and where do you think it is headed?

Ramos: This is in the right direction. But I would like to see the senior generals, on the part of the Armed Forces, in the Army, Navy and the Air Force, as well as in the National Police itself, which is now separate, to be given a longer tenure in their respective assignments. What we're seeing is just too much of a revolving door policy, quoting from the media now. Even a one year term, which is what most of them have now, somehow even just three months, you see, is not enough time for reforms, which they are sincerely pursuing, to be put on the ground, and actualized. It just will not happen, because governance now is so complicated, especially providing for national security, which is the job of the armed forces, and ensuring efficient law enforcement, which is the duty of the national police.

RC: What would be a reasonable time for a chief of staff to serve?

Ramos: Three years should be the ideal time. Two and a half years maybe good enough, but three months, six months, nine months, which is the recent experience, just does not work.

RC: Mr. President, there's also some concern that all this prosecution of corrupt generals could lead to a degree of unrest in the military. What are your thoughts about that?

Ramos: I do not think so. The majority of the armed forces are of course, at the junior officer level, and below, including the non officers or the enlisted personnel. What they would want to see is, again, professionalism, throughout, as well as a tenure in public service, in the uniform, that is seen as productive and honorable. Of course everyone wants to be able to enjoy their pensions after twenty-five or thirty years of continuous service, but if the government is not able to appropriate the funds for that purpose because the economy is bad, because there is a big, big debt, then you are bound to have unrest in the ranks. But it is something that can be managed properly, if the entire system operates according to the rules and according to the rule of law.

RC: You say the younger officers want to see a more professional, more capable military, do you think that they view the trial of some of these generals as a positive development towards reform?

Ramos: Yes, the majority would see it that way. Those who would object are those who probably might get hurt if the investigation goes as deeply as it should. There are also many who are no longer in the active service, who would want to still have an active role, somewhere, either in the private sector, or in government. Of course, there are opportunities for people who are retired at age 56. That is the terminal date in both the police and the military service, and there you are just really looking at a certain career. But what you earn as benefits and pensions while serving in uniform, must be guaranteed to that person who is retiring.

RC: Going back to the issue of how the officers may view the trial of some allegedly corrupt generals, if they were to stop, if the trials and investigations into corruption were to stop with the generals, and not expand into possible complicity by civilian authorities, do you think that would satisfy the young officers? Or do they want to see this reach its natural conclusion, meaning whoever gets caught in this investigation, let the chips fall where they may?

Ramos: I think the latter situation is more applicable and in the long run more favorable, for the overall good of the institutions, because we cannot say that the abuse or the anomalies are just confined to the higher ranks. But there must be a continuous process of weeding out the misfits, and the so-called rogues in uniform or as we say in the military and the police, the scalawags. That should be a continuous process, no matter who gets hit.

RC: Let me ask you a sort of difficult question. You've been out of office for a number of years now, but you're very active in looking around and trying to talk to people, and figuring out what the situation is. If you were somehow made president again today, name me the first three things that you would do.

Ramos: Let me tell you about this foundation that I now chair, called the Ramos Peace and Development Foundation, the acronym is RPDF. It sounds very much like Republic of the Philippines Development, no? But that is intentional, because there must always be a second draft, so to speak, parallel to the government that is supportive of government for the benefit of the people. As private citizens we can speak out freely, frankly, candidly, about issues that affect the welfare of the people. So if you're asking me for three things, I'll tell you, in three little words: caring, sharing, and daring. Caring and sharing are easy enough for us to do, as Filipinos or as humans, even, because we are naturally hospitable, friendly, compassionate, generous. But the daring to give more than to take, in terms of benefits, funds, is something else. Now, there is more of the 'each man for himself' kind of an attitude that still prevails in many localities. So the daring to sacrifice for the common good, the daring to take concerted action in order to make a difference, these do not happen easily in the Philippine context because of our political system, the presidential system, with two co-equal chambers in the legislature. And every proposed bill must go through the same process twice, something that we cannot afford anymore. That's why in my particular case, since 1991, when I declared my intention to run for the presidency, I have always advocated a unicameral parliamentary system; parliamentary being favored because that system has a built-in mechanism, called the no-confidence vote, to remove a non-performing government, as we have seen around here in Southeast Asia. It happened in Thailand after the '97 financial crisis. And very quickly the new parliament, the new government, put through the necessary strategic reforms, to bring the country back into economic recovery. In our case, we end up with interminable debates, even for little issues, and losing sight of the greater vision.