Short answer. Under Section 61 of RA 9165, a court decides on a petition for compulsory confinement by holding a hearing, ordering the person examined by two accredited physicians, and weighing the evidence. If both find no dependency, it discharges him; if either finds dependency, it hears the case and may order commitment to a rehabilitation center.
What the law says
If both physicians conclude that the respondent is not a drug dependent, the court shall order his/her discharge
RA 9165, Section 61 — Compulsory Confinement Of Drug Dependents. Read the full provision →
It starts with a petition, not a police raid
Compulsory confinement under Section 61 is a court process, aimed at a person who refuses the voluntary submission program. It begins when the Dangerous Drugs Board, or someone it authorises, files a petition with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the person is found, asking that he be confined for treatment and rehabilitation. This is a civil, protective proceeding, not a criminal trial. The court's task is to determine, on evidence and medical findings, whether the person is genuinely dependent on dangerous drugs and needs supervised treatment — not to punish him for a crime.
A hearing and a two-doctor examination
After the petition is filed, the court sets a hearing date and serves the order on the person alleged to be dependent and on whoever has charge of him, so he knows the case and can respond. If the facts warrant, the court orders him examined by two physicians accredited by the Board. Their findings are central. The medical examination is what turns a mere allegation into a matter the court can act on, and it guards against confining someone on suspicion alone. Both the notice and the examination are protections that must be observed before any deprivation of liberty can follow.
What the doctors' findings decide
The two physicians' conclusions steer the outcome. The law is explicit: If both physicians conclude that the respondent is not a drug dependent, the court shall order his/her discharge. If either physician instead finds him dependent, the court does not commit him automatically — it conducts a hearing and considers all relevant evidence offered. Only if the court, after weighing that evidence, finds him a drug dependent may it issue an order committing him to a treatment and rehabilitation center under the supervision of the Department of Health. Medical opinion opens the inquiry; the court's own finding closes it.
A firm deadline on the decision
The process is not open-ended. Section 61 requires that, in any event, the order of discharge or of confinement and commitment be issued not later than fifteen days from the filing of the petition. This deadline keeps a person from languishing under an unresolved petition and forces the court to move promptly on questions of liberty and health. The section does not, however, cover the length of the rehabilitation itself or the later rules on release and after-care, which are governed by other provisions. What it fixes is how a court reaches the initial decision to discharge or to commit.