Short answer. Yes. A parent, spouse or guardian who without valid reason refuses to cooperate with the Board or a concerned agency in a minor drug dependent's treatment, or who prevents or delays after-care and follow-up programmes, may be cited for contempt by the court under Section 73.
What the law says
Any parent, spouse or guardian who, without valid reason, refuses to cooperate with the Board or any concerned agency in the treatment and rehabilitation of a drug dependent who is a minor
RA 9165, Section 73 — Uncooperative Parent, Spouse Or Guardian. Read the full provision →
What the law says
prevents or delays the after-care, follow-up or other programs for the welfare of the accused drug dependent, whether under voluntary submission program or compulsory submission program, may be cited for contempt by the court
RA 9165, Section 73 — Uncooperative Parent, Spouse Or Guardian. Read the full provision →
The section has two limbs, and they reach differently
The first covers the person who refuses to cooperate with the Board or any concerned agency in the treatment and rehabilitation of a drug dependent who is a minor. The second covers the person who in any manner prevents or delays the after-care, follow-up or other programs for the welfare of the accused drug dependent, whether under voluntary submission program or compulsory submission program. Only the first is expressly tied to a minor; the second speaks of the accused drug dependent and applies across both programmes. Obstructing after-care therefore exposes a relative whether the dependent is a child or an adult.
Who is exposed, and to what
The people named are a parent, a spouse or a guardian — the section does not reach every relative, and it does not reach an employer, a landlord or a sibling standing outside those roles. The sanction is a citation for contempt by the court, not a separate criminal conviction under the Act, and the section says such a person may be cited, which leaves it to the court's judgement rather than making it automatic. That is a meaningful difference: contempt is directed at securing compliance in a live proceeding, so the surest way to answer it is usually to start cooperating.
'Without valid reason' is where the argument lives
The section punishes only refusal without valid reason, and that qualification is doing real work. Distance to the Center, work that cannot be abandoned, safety concerns, or a genuine inability to meet the family's share of the cost are the kinds of thing it exists for. Cost in particular has its own answer elsewhere in the Act: Section 74 makes the family's contribution a percentage fixed by DSWD guidelines that take the family's economic status into account, administered through a social worker of the local government unit. A parent who cannot pay should be saying so on the record, not disengaging.
What this means in practice
The provision reflects a design choice that runs through the whole rehabilitation scheme: treatment is not something the State does to a person in isolation, and the family is treated as part of the programme rather than as a bystander to it. Section 41 says as much, making the family primarily responsible for educating its own members on the ill effects of dangerous drugs and for closely monitoring those who may be susceptible. So the risk of contempt attaches less to any single missed appointment than to a settled pattern of non-engagement. If cooperating is genuinely impossible on the terms proposed, the reason belongs in front of the court or the agency early, while it can still be accommodated.
Related provisions
- RA 9165, Section 41 — Role Of The Family
- RA 9165, Section 73 — Uncooperative Parent, Spouse Or Guardian
- RA 9165, Section 74 — Cost-Sharing In Rehabilitation