Clarifying the Governance and Budgeting of the Free Nutritious Meal Programme

Many WhatsApp messages have come into my phone, particularly from media colleagues. The issue most frequently raised concerns the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme, which continues to be widely discussed.

It is understandable that this programme has attracted significant public attention, given its reach to tens of millions of beneficiaries. On this matter, I believe President Prabowo holds the view that the nutritional quality of Indonesian children must be improved.

I share this perspective, as this agenda is both noble and important. The average prevalence of chronic malnutrition in Indonesian children remains high at approximately 19%, meaning that of every 100 births, 19% experience chronic malnutrition. This percentage is considered medium-to-high; according to WHO standards, it should be below 10% to be classified as low.

Nutritional intervention through school feeding programmes such as MBG has long been implemented by many developed nations, including China, Japan, and Scandinavian countries such as Finland and Norway, and has been adopted by developing nations such as India and Brazil. The results have been fairly successful.

President Prabowo has rolled out the MBG programme as a policy intervention to improve the nutritional status of Indonesian children. Certainly, MBG has noble aspirations, and we ought to support it.

That there remain many shortcomings in its implementation is precisely why the DPR, including myself in the Budget Commission, has a role and duty to provide constructive suggestions so that governance improves and intervention targets are achieved.

In my view, the first matter that must be addressed is the management of meal preparation facilities, or SPPG (Nutrition Fulfilment Service Units). This year, the government is targeting the operation of 35,270 SPPGs.

Most SPPGs are managed by the community, whether through social foundations or individuals. This is positive, as it opens space for community participation. However, some of those granted authority to operate meal facilities have damaged that trust.

In practice, not all meal facility operators comply with the service standards and nutritional menu requirements set by BGN. Regarding this issue, I recommend that BGN issue a blacklist of non-compliant partners and meal facility operators.

They should be removed as BGN partners, and if necessary, placed under heightened scrutiny. Their conduct endangers the children who are programme beneficiaries and prevents President Prabowo’s stated nutrition intervention targets from being achieved.

Secondly, BGN may need to re-evaluate the target number of beneficiary students. The coverage could be reduced from the current target of 3,000 students per SPPG to a maximum of 1,500-2,000 students. With a smaller reach, it becomes possible for SPPGs to cook more quickly and adjust delivery times to students. In this way, meals remain hygienic.

Thirdly, BGN needs to involve regional and village governments as part of the supervisory group, able to provide recommendations on SPPG compliance to BGN and compile a blacklist of operators, as well as taking anticipatory measures regarding the quality and safety of food to be provided to students.

Why is this necessary? Because BGN lacks vertical institutional reach downward, and if unwanted incidents occur, regional governments will also have to assist in managing them.

Media colleagues have raised many questions about the MBG programme budget. Is there genuinely a reallocation from the education budget? The state budget (APBN) is the only law whose draft is proposed by the government to the DPR.

Because of this, the DPR’s role in examining the draft state budget is limited to modifying, increasing or decreasing budget allocations for programmes and ministries/agencies that are mutually agreed upon by the government. In accordance with the constitution, the DPR has the authority to reject the entire draft state budget, or otherwise approve it.

Returning to the matter of MBG and the education budget: since President Prabowo has led the government and submitted the state budgets for 2025 and 2026, the education budget complies with constitutional mandate, namely 20% of state expenditure.

The education budget allocation in the 2025 state budget is Rp 724.2 trillion, and in 2026 it is Rp 769 trillion. Within these two years of budget allocation, the education budget allocation, including the MBG budget within it, amounts to Rp 71 trillion in 2025 and Rp 268 trillion in 2026.

In 2026, BGN receives budget allocation pursuant to the state budget law of Rp 268 trillion, of which Rp 255.5 trillion is for MBG programme support and Rp 12.4 trillion for programme management support. Of the BGN programme budget of Rp 255.5 trillion, Rp 223.5 trillion is allocated for education functions.

Regarding the statement by the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education (Kemendikdasmen) that his ministry’s budget allocation has increased, this is indeed true. This budget increase is different from the MBG budget.

The increase is a consequence of the rise in state expenditure from 2025 to 2026, as state expenditure serves as the base for calculating the 20% allocation for education.

The budget increase is not only received by Kemendikdasmen, but also by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (Kemendiktisaintek), the Ministry of Religious Affairs (Kemenag), the Ministry of Social Affairs (Kemensos) and the Ministry of Public Works (Kemen PU) in executing education functions from the state budget. Kemendikdasmen increased by Rp 21.5 trillion, Kemendiktisaintek by Rp 3.3 trillion, Kemenag by Rp 10.5 trillion, Kemensos by Rp 4 trillion and Kemen PU by Rp 1.7 trillion.

Therefore, in 2025 and 2026, the MBG budget allocation becomes an element included in the education budget allocation. This has become a political decision between the DPR and the government.

Can placing the MBG budget as part of the education budget be interpreted as part of the education budget intended by the constitution? What is clear is that the government and the DPR have decided to make it law in the state budget.

I respect the groups of civil society that have filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court (MK) regarding the MBG budget within the education budget. Whether this basis is valid can only be determined by the Constitutional Court (MK), which can provide legal reasoning on whether this policy is correct or not.

However, with confidence and based on various constitutional studies, the DPR and the government have made this decision. I hope this explanation provides clarity on the actual situation.