Constitutional Court Prohibits Free Nutritious Meal Program from Using Education Budget, Effective 2028

The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided that the budget for the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme must be separated from the education budget within the State Budget (APBN). This ruling was announced by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Suhartoyo, during a session for Case Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 in Jakarta on Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed by the Nusantara Learning Garden Foundation (Yayasan Taman Belajar Nusantara), which challenged Article 22, paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 regarding the 2026 State Budget. The petitioners argued that funding the MBG programme through the education budget violates Article 31, paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which mandates that at least 20 per cent of the State Budget be allocated to education.

In its verdict, the Constitutional Court stated that education funds in the APBN may no longer be used to implement the MBG programme. Chief Justice Suhartoyo noted that the MBG programme cannot be categorised as a primary component of education and must therefore be separated from the operational budget of educational services.

Constitutional Judge Guntur Hamzah reinforced that Article 31, paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution requires the state to allocate at least 20 per cent of the APBN to education. The court emphasised that this fundamental budget must be prioritised for core educational operations and should not be reduced due to fiscal constraints. The judges argued that including the MBG programme in the education budget creates a proportional imbalance, as the high cost of the meal programme threatens the funding of essential needs like basic education and teacher welfare.

Constitutional Judge Enny Nurbaningsih specified that the 20 per cent allocation for both the APBN and regional budgets (APBD) must strictly cover students, educators, infrastructure, curriculum, and educational development, explicitly excluding the MBG programme. Furthermore, Judge Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh criticised the government’s approach, suggesting that using the MBG programme to meet the 20 per cent allocation threshold was a ‘tactic’ that hinders the resolution of massive issues in the education sector.

While the court acknowledged that the MBG programme is a constitutional priority of the current government, it ruled that the separation must be implemented. To avoid making the 2026 State Budget unconstitutional, the court mandated that the separation of the MBG budget from the education budget must be finalised by the 2027 State Budget or, at the latest, the 2028 State Budget.