Short answer. The family shares it. Section 74 charges the parent, spouse, guardian or any relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity a percentage of the cost, fixed by DSWD guidelines that take the family's economic status into account and applied by a social worker of the local government unit.
What the law says
The parent, spouse, guardian or any relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity of any person who is confined under the voluntary submission program or compulsory submission program shall be charged a certain percentage of the cost of his/her treatment and rehabilitation
RA 9165, Section 74 — Cost-Sharing In Rehabilitation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
taking into consideration the economic status of the family of the person confined. The guidelines therein formulated shall be implemented by a social worker of the local government unit.
RA 9165, Section 74 — Cost-Sharing In Rehabilitation. Read the full provision →
Who the charge falls on
The parent, spouse, guardian or any relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity of any person who is confined under the voluntary submission program or compulsory submission program shall be charged a certain percentage of the cost of his/her treatment and rehabilitation. The circle is wider than most readers expect — the fourth degree of consanguinity reaches first cousins, not merely the household — and it does not depend on how the confinement came about. A family that petitioned for a relative and a family that opposed the confinement are on the same footing here.
A percentage, not the bill
The Act does not hand the whole cost to the family, and it does not write a figure into the statute. What is charged is a certain percentage, and the percentage itself is set by guidelines taking into consideration the economic status of the family of the person confined. The guidelines therein formulated shall be implemented by a social worker of the local government unit. So this is means-tested and administered locally rather than billed at a fixed rate. Anyone quoting you a specific amount is quoting a guideline or a particular centre's schedule, not this section.
Who carries the rest
The balance sits with the State. Section 75 places the existing treatment and rehabilitation centres under the DOH to operate, maintain and manage, directs the Board through the DOH to encourage and where feasible support private centres — which become eligible for grants, donations or subsidy from government or private sources — and calls for at least one drug rehabilitation centre in each province, depending on the availability of funds. That last qualification is honest about the limits: capacity is a funding question, and where a family ends up seeking a place will often decide what the cost conversation looks like.
Raise inability to pay, do not absorb it
Because the share is calibrated to means, an inability to pay is something to put to the social worker administering the guidelines, with the household's actual circumstances behind it. It is not a reason to withdraw from the programme, and withdrawing carries its own exposure: Section 73 makes a parent, spouse or guardian who without valid reason refuses to cooperate in a minor's treatment, or who prevents or delays after-care and follow-up, liable to be cited for contempt by the court. The cost question and the cooperation question are answered in different places, and conflating them is how families get into trouble.
Related provisions
- RA 9165, Section 73 — Uncooperative Parent, Spouse Or Guardian
- RA 9165, Section 74 — Cost-Sharing In Rehabilitation
- RA 9165, Section 75 — Treatment And Rehabilitation Centers