Fraud or Political Purge? Unmasking the Scandalous Ouster of NCSC’s Reymar Mansilungan

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — May 8, 2025

COMMISSIONER Reymar Mansilungan’s career at the National Commission of Senior Citizens (NCSC) didn’t end with a resignation—it ended with a firing squad. On April 23, 2025, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin made him the poster child of ‘accountability’ for faking a UP degree and looting public funds. But dig deeper, and the real crime isn’t Mansilungan’s corruption—it’s the Marcos administration’s timing. A Duterte ally falls just as political tensions peak? Coincidence—or calculated revenge? This investigation unmasks the legal theatrics, the dirty money trails, and the chilling message sent to every official: cross us, and justice becomes your executioner.

Intro: Public Trust Slaughtered or Political Score Settled?

Public trust in Philippine governance is on life support, and Mansilungan’s ouster is either a defibrillator or a final nail in the coffin. Appointed by Duterte in 2022, this PDP-Laban loyalist was meant to champion senior citizens. Instead, he’s been exposed as a fraud who faked a UP degree and misused NCSC funds. The charges—serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial—carry the death penalty of dismissal under civil service rules. But the fingerprints of Senior Citizens Party-list Rep. Rodolfo Ordanes and Marcos Jr.’s administration raise a stink of political foul play. Is this a cleansing of corruption or a targeted hit? Through administrative law, ethical scrutiny, and political dissection, we unravel a saga that’s as much about justice as it is about power.

Legal Autopsy: Ironclad Case or Cherry-Picked Justice?

Bersamin’s 16-page verdict is a legal sledgehammer, but its aim feels suspiciously precise. Let’s dissect the charges, their legal roots, and whether they hold up under the scalpel of Philippine jurisprudence.

Serious Dishonesty: A Fake Degree, a Real Deception

Mansilungan’s claim of a Mass Communication degree from UP, debunked by UP’s registrar, is the smoking gun of serious dishonesty. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, s. 2021 defines this as “concealment or distortion of truth” with intent to deceive, punishable by dismissal. The Supreme Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina (G.R. No. 213500) ruled that falsifying qualifications for a trust-based role demands the harshest penalty. Mansilungan’s excuse—his daughter “inadvertently encoded” the degree—is laughable. A.M. No. 2001-7-SC rejected similar dodges, stressing officials must verify their credentials. UP’s certification is airtight, and Mansilungan’s inaction screams intent. This charge alone buries him.

Grave Misconduct: Throwing Money Where It Doesn’t Belong

The grave misconduct charge centers on Mansilungan approving midyear bonuses for two ineligible contract-of-service (COS) employees, flouting DBM Circular No. 2018-4. Grave misconduct, per *Ma. Luisa R. Loreño v. Office of the Ombudsman* (G.R. No. 242901), involves “willful intent to violate the law.” Bersamin notes the bonuses defied clear DBM rules, and while Mansilungan claims repayment, the act was reckless. Add COA findings—using NCSC funds for out-of-jurisdiction activities and charging meals and alcohol to training budgets—and the case tightens. *SC Affirms Dismissal of Ombudsman Official* upheld dismissal for comparable financial sins. But why only Mansilungan? Are other NCSC officials untouchable?

Conduct Prejudicial: Trashing the NCSC’s Good Name

The charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service mops up Mansilungan’s mess: misusing resources, renting a residential unit in Lucena City as an “office,” and tarnishing the NCSC’s reputation. Republic Act No. 6713, Section 11, demands integrity, and *Committee on Security and Safety v. Dianco* (A.M. No. CA-15-31-P) confirms that reputation-damaging acts justify dismissal when paired with graver crimes. These infractions, especially COA-flagged irregularities, hurt the NCSC’s mission for seniors. It’s a softer charge but seals Mansilungan’s fate.

Procedural Shenanigans: Due Process or Done Deal?

The case’s path is a bureaucratic maze. Complaints filed with the Ombudsman in 2023 were referred to Bersamin, despite the Ombudsman’s authority under R.A. No. 6770. For presidential appointees, the President’s disciplinary power, via the Executive Secretary, is upheld in *Angara v. Electoral Commission*. This is legal but reeks of expediency. Why dodge the Ombudsman’s scrutiny? The swift timeline—2023 complaints, 2024 suspension, 2025 dismissal—hints at Malacañang’s urgency to flex its accountability muscles. Mansilungan got his say, meeting due process, but the process feels stage-managed.

Table: Charges vs. Legal Standards

Charge	Evidence	Legal Violation	Precedent
Serious Dishonesty	Falsified UP degree	CSC MC No. 13, s. 2021	Ombudsman v. Espina (G.R. 213500)
Grave Misconduct	Bonuses for ineligible COS workers, misused funds	DBM Circular No. 2018-4, R.A. 6713	Loreño v. Ombudsman (G.R. 242901)
Conduct Prejudicial	Tarnished NCSC image via resource misuse	R.A. 6713, Section 11	Dianco (A.M. No. CA-15-31-P)

Political Conspiracy: Cleansing or Clobbering Duterte’s Legacy?

Mansilungan’s PDP-Laban badge and Duterte appointment make him a marked man under Marcos Jr. Appointed in January 2022, he chaired PDP-Laban’s senior citizens committee, tying him to a faction now sidelined. The 2023 complaints by Ordanes and Miguelito Garcia align with Marcos’s power grab, smelling like a setup. Ordanes’s involvement, as a rival in senior citizens’ advocacy, suggests personal or political axes to grind. Marcos’s accountability rhetoric rings hollow when his allies escape similar scrutiny. The Ombudsman’s referral to Bersamin, while legal, screams political choreography, bypassing an independent probe for Malacañang’s control. The timeline—complaints in 2023, a House inquiry, a 90-day suspension in 2024, and dismissal in 2025—shows calculated momentum. PDP-Laban’s silence either admits Mansilungan’s guilt or ducks a fight with Marcos. This is accountability as a political weapon, plain and simple.

Ethical Evisceration: Public Trust Betrayed

Mansilungan’s defenses are a pathetic dodge. Blaming his daughter for the fake degree spits in the face of the public trust doctrine under Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. His claim that qualifications were “immaterial” mocks R.A. 6713’s integrity mandate. COA’s findings—misused training funds, residential rentals, and personal expenses—reveal a pattern of entitlement, not one-off mistakes. This isn’t just Mansilungan; it’s a symptom of NCSC’s rot, as flagged in a 2024 Inquirer piece (link). His insubordination, like opposing a Malacañang nominee, adds fuel. Systemic corruption? Likely. But targeting only Mansilungan lets others off the hook, deflecting from broader accountability.

Fixing the Fiasco: Bold Reforms or Bust

Policy Overhaul: Tighten NCSC appointments under R.A. 11350 with independent credential checks and annual COA audits. Define commissioners’ jurisdictions to curb overreach.
Institutional Reset: Let the Ombudsman exclusively handle appointee discipline under R.A. 6770, or create a neutral tribunal to shield cases from Malacañang’s grip.
Political Detox: Mandate bipartisan oversight of disciplinary cases and publicize all actions, regardless of affiliation. Marcos must target allies too—fat chance, given history.

Verdict: Justice or Just a Show?

Mansilungan’s dismissal is a legal bullseye, backed by CSC rules, DBM guidelines, and Supreme Court rulings. But its political stench is suffocating. Marcos’s accountability crusade feels like a hit job when it spares his cronies. The NCSC, meant to uplift seniors, is a casualty of lax oversight and political games. Until Malacañang’s broom sweeps its own backyard, this case is a jarring precedent, not justice. Seniors deserve better—transparency, integrity, and a system that puts trust over vendettas. Reform now, or the stench will linger.

Key Citations

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.