Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Constitutional Court (MK) has issued a\nreminder regarding the state\u2019s obligation to fulfil the constitutional\nmandate concerning the priority capacity of the education budget, which\nmust be at least 20 per cent of the State Budget (APBN) and must not be\nreduced regardless of any budgetary constraints.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis clarification is essential because, regardless of any\nlimitations the state faces in determining the APBN, the operational\nbudget for education for fundamental purposes, as considered above,\nshould not be affected or reduced,\u201d stated Constitutional Judge M.\nGuntur Ahmad. He was reading the court\u2019s considerations during the\nverdict hearing for judicial review number 40\/PUU-XXIV\/2026 regarding\nthe budget for the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme within the 2026\nAPBN in Jakarta on Thursday.<\/p>\n
The Constitutional Court partially granted the petition regarding Law\nNumber 17 of 2025 concerning the 2026 State Budget, which included the\nMBG programme budget within the education budget allocation.<\/p>\n
In its decision, the Court also considered that maintaining the\npriority capacity of the education budget at a minimum of 20 per cent of\nthe APBN is a necessity to ensure the state fulfils its constitutional\nmandate. This includes the government\u2019s constitutional obligation to\nfund primary education as a priority, in accordance with Article 31,\nparagraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The Court stated that the state must be firm and consistent in\ndetermining the primary components directly related to the\nimplementation of education. Using budget prioritised for educational\noperations for other programmes outside these components constitutes a\nviolation of the constitutional mandate, specifically Article 31,\nparagraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>\n
Such budget diversions could hinder the execution of the state\u2019s\nobligations as commanded by Article 31, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the\n1945 Constitution. The Court emphasised that the essence of the\nconstitutional principle regarding education must be met: first, the\nstate must ensure that no citizen\u2019s right to education is obstructed;\nsecond, all citizens must be able to fulfil their rights and obligations\nin receiving primary education, fully funded by the government.<\/p>\n
The Court noted that the success of these goals depends on essential\nelements of educational implementation, such as adequate and accessible\neducational institutions, competent and professional educators, and a\nfair and legally certain curriculum. These elements are directly linked\nto the availability of good and equitable infrastructure, teacher\nwelfare, and optimal, inclusive access for students.<\/p>\n
Regarding this matter, the inclusion of the nutritious meal programme\nas part of educational operations in the explanation of Article 22,\nparagraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 is not only inconsistent with the\ndefinition of educational operations but also causes an imbalance in the\nproportional education budget. The MBG programme, which utilises the\neducation budget, is a high-priority state programme requiring a massive\nbudget.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn fact, within that minimum 20 per cent education budget, there is\nalso funding for primary education, which is a constitutional obligation\nof the government that has not yet been fully realised,\u201d the judge\nadded.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the broad scope of the programme, which prioritises the\nequalisation of nutritional rights for all targets, creates an imbalance\nby disrupting the proportionality of the education budget, as a portion\nof it is diverted to the MBG programme.<\/p>\n
The Court\u2019s clarification aligns with legal facts revealed during the\ntrial: if the education budget allocated for the MBG programme were\nremoved from the education budget post, the overall 20 per cent\neducation budget target would not be met. In the 2026 APBN, the 20 per\ncent education budget is only achieved because the MBG budget is\nincluded as a component of the education budget.<\/p>\n
Constitutional Judge Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh added that due to the\nvast scope of the MBG programme, its funding should be determined\nseparately or specifically outside the education budget prioritised for\neducational operations. Given the importance of national educational\ngoals, not every programme targeting students, educators, or\ninstitutions can be categorised as educational operations, especially if\nthe substance is unrelated to educational functions.<\/p>\n
\u201cTherefore, according to the court, the explanation of Article 22,\nparagraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 has created legal uncertainty and\nhas led to the failure of the state\u2019s obligation to meet the priority of\nthe education budget as commanded by the constitution,\u201d said Daniel.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-warns-education-budget-must-not-be-reduced-1785437513", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }