Constitutional Court Hearing: Free Nutritious Meals Trigger Mass Layoffs of PPPK Teachers and Disrupt Class Hours

A judicial review hearing of the 2026 State Revenue and Expenditure Budget Law at the Constitutional Court on Monday, 15 June 2026, revealed a domino effect of the free nutritious meals (MBG) programme on the declining welfare of teachers and the quality of classroom learning. This was conveyed by a witness for the petitioner in Case Number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026, Iman Zaenatul Haeri, a teacher at Madrasah Aliyah Al Tsaqafah.

The Head of Teacher Advocacy at the Education and Teachers Association (P2G) assessed that the enormous budget to fund MBG has triggered layoffs of teachers who are government employees with work agreements (PPPK).

"After the 2026 MBG was introduced, there were mass terminations of employment for PPPK teachers who were considered already prosperous, and they were dismissed, along with honorary teachers," Iman said at the Constitutional Court building in Jakarta on Monday.

According to him, these mass dismissals occurred because regional governments did not extend contracts with PPPK teachers. He stated that at least 39 PPPK teachers in Tuban, East Java, experienced this, not to mention other regions including East Lombok.

Furthermore, he said that as a result of MBG, the salaries of part-time PPPK teachers are lower than those of honorary teachers. One cited example was a part-time PPPK teacher in Cianjur, West Java, receiving a salary of Rp 300,000 per month. Another case involved a teacher in Sumedang who received wages of Rp 50,000 before deductions for Social Security Agency (BPJS) contributions.

Iman’s account was reinforced by the results of a survey he conducted of 239 honorary teachers and part-time PPPK teachers. A total of 92 teachers reported experiencing an increased workload and a lack of learning time after MBG was introduced. Iman then curated hundreds of teacher responses into several categories of MBG’s impact, namely delays in teacher salaries and allowances, reduced educational facilities, and the loss of opportunities to be appointed as PPPK teachers.

"What did the teachers say? ‘I doubt continuing my career as a teacher,’" Iman said, quoting his survey results.

In the survey, Iman also found that the majority of respondents complained about disrupted classroom learning activities following the introduction of MBG. This is because learning hours became less effective as they were used for distributing MBG meals, collecting lunch boxes, and returning them. Moreover, this burden is often shifted onto teachers who should be focused on educating students.

"The most frequently cited impact is the reduction of effective hours due to the process of distribution, collection, and return of containers, which is very contradictory to the Teachers and Lecturers Law, and often takes place during lesson time," he said.

Iman stated that the judicial review petition at the Constitutional Court against Article 22 paragraph 3 of the 2026 State Budget Law, which in its explanation includes MBG as an education programme, is a last resort to restore the essence of the national education programme. He assessed that there is currently no access to evaluate the education budget allocation for teacher welfare after the inclusion of MBG. Moreover, the competent authorities that should be defending teachers have instead become managers of MBG kitchens or nutritional fulfilment service units (SPPG).

"Honestly, we wanted to report to the police, but the police have SPPG kitchens; we wanted to report to the military, but the soldiers have SPPG kitchens; we wanted to report to the House of Representatives, but many DPR members have SPPG kitchens," he said.

Lawsuits against MBG continue to mount at the Constitutional Court after the government allocated a portion of the education budget to finance President Prabowo Subianto’s priority programme. Since January 2026, the Constitutional Court has received six judicial review petitions related to MBG. All these cases are registered under numbers 40, 52, 55, 130 and 142/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petitioners are challenging Article 22 paragraph 3 of the 2026 State Budget Law and its explanation, which includes MBG as part of the education budget.