Commission IX Urges Government to Implement Constitutional Court Ruling on Free Nutritious Meal Programme

The Deputy Chairman of Commission IX of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), Charles Honoris, has requested that the government immediately follow up on the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the budget for the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme. The ruling mandates that the MBG budget must be separated from the education budget within the State Budget (APBN).

Honoris stated that the Constitutional Court’s decision provides clear constitutional interpretation. He noted that including the MBG programme budget within the education budget cluster has previously contradicted constitutional mandates. Although the Court has provided an adjustment period lasting until the 2028 fiscal year at the latest, Honoris believes the government should act promptly to demonstrate obedience to the constitution and respect for the Court’s ruling.

He further suggested that this ruling should serve as a momentum to refocus the MBG programme. According to Honoris, if the primary goal is to improve public nutritional status, the approach must be targeted rather than universal. He argued that the programme should prioritise groups in greatest need, such as children from poor and vulnerable families, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and toddlers at risk of nutritional issues.

Citing data from BPS (Statistics Indonesia) and various civil society studies, Honoris noted that beneficiaries could be focused on approximately 26 million people requiring nutritional intervention. By adopting this targeted approach, the required annual budget could be reduced to approximately Rp60 trillion. This would ensure the MBG programme remains fiscally sustainable without placing an excessive burden on the APBN or eroding the budget allocated for education.

Irma Suryani, a member of Commission IX, added that the ruling eliminates ambiguity and clarifies the accountability of the MBG programme. She emphasised that the MBG programme is not inherently an educational programme. She argued that having a dedicated budget and nomenclature for MBG would improve budgeting and accountability, noting that the programme’s benefits extend beyond increasing children’s IQ to improving physical resilience, supporting pregnant women, and preventing stunting.

In its previous ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that the education budget in the APBN may no longer be used to implement the MBG programme. The Court ruled that the MBG programme cannot be categorised as a primary component of education and must therefore be separated from the operational budget for educational implementation.