Constitutional Court grants withdrawal of judicial review of State Budget Law regarding MBG programme
Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Constitutional Court (MK) has granted the withdrawal or revocation of the material judicial review petition for Law Number 17 of 2025 on the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN) for the 2026 Fiscal Year concerning the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) Programme.
The pronouncement session for Ruling Number 127/PUU-XXIV/2026 was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by other constitutional justices, in the plenary courtroom at MK Building 1, Jakarta, on Tuesday.
“Regarding Petition 127/PUU-XXIV/2026, the Court has received a letter from the petitioners regarding the request for withdrawal or revocation with reasons and so forth, deemed pronounced,” said Suhartoyo.
The petition was filed by petitioners comprising ST Luthfia, Marina Aritonang, Edy Rudiyanto, Syamsul Jahidin, and Eka Nurhayati.
In addition to receiving the letter, said Suhartoyo, the Court also conducted confirmation during the hearing, in essence the petitioners confirmed the withdrawal or revocation of the aforementioned petition.
Subsequently, in the judges’ deliberation meeting (RPH) on 29 April 2026, it was decided that the withdrawal of the petition was legally justified and the petitioners may not refile the aforementioned petition.
Furthermore, the RPH instructed the clerk to record the withdrawal of the petitioners’ petition in the Electronic Constitutional Case Registration Book (e-BRPK) and return copies of the petition file to the petitioners.
“It is hereby decided: to grant the petitioners’ withdrawal. To declare that Petition Number 127/PUU-XXIV/2026 has been withdrawn. To declare that the petitioners may not refile the aforementioned petition,” stated Suhartoyo.
In the previous hearing, the petitioners alleged several articles in the 2025 APBN Law for the 2026 Fiscal Year, namely Article 8 paragraph (5), Article 9 paragraph (4), Article 11 paragraph (2), Article 13 paragraph (4), Article 20 paragraph (1), Article 29 paragraph (1) against the 1945 Constitution.
The reasons for the petition filed by the petitioners included constitutional violations in the APBN Law regarding the governance of the MBG Programme, foundations, and SPPG.
The petitioners suffered potential harm as citizens whose taxes are taken to fund the MBG Programme without clear oversight.
The petitioners’ concerns were exacerbated by field findings related to a 76 percent decline in food quality, with respondents feeling that the portions received by children in schools do not reflect the budget standards.
Furthermore, there is strong suspicion of systematic budget trimming practices to take profit margins, sacrificing nutritional quality.
For information, there are at least six similar cases currently being processed at the MK, namely Petition Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Yayasan Taman Belajar Nusantara et al.; Petition Number 52/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Rega Felix; Petition Number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Reza Sudrajat; 100/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Koalisi MBG Watch; Petition Number 130/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Ricki Insan Putra et al., and Petition Number 142/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Bernita Matondang et al.