Constitutional Court Reviews Free Nutritious Meals in Education Budget, DPR Expert Says Programme Needs Fixing, Not Scrapping

The funding of the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme through the education budget came under scrutiny during a judicial review of the 2026 State Budget Law at the Constitutional Court. Experts assessed that the programme still requires improvements to avoid disrupting other educational needs and to prevent potential budget irregularities. The House of Representatives presented Cecep Darmawan, a professor at the Indonesian University of Education, as an expert. He acknowledged that the programme’s implementation still faces various issues, including food quality, hygiene, targeting accuracy, and suspected budget leakages. “The various problems emerging in the MBG implementation indicate the need for comprehensive governance improvements,” Cecep stated during the plenary session in Jakarta on Tuesday. Despite the issues, Cecep argued it is too early to conclude that the programme should be terminated. He stressed that what is needed now is evaluation and management reform to ensure the programme runs more effectively and reaches the right targets. “The success of the MBG programme is not solely determined by the size of the budget, but also by the quality of governance applied,” he said. He also cautioned that the programme, which aims to improve students’ nutrition, must not turn into a space for corrupt practices or budgetary waste. Furthermore, he noted that the allocation of MBG funds must still consider other educational needs such as teacher welfare, improving learning quality, and fulfilling school infrastructure. Meanwhile, constitutional law expert from Gadjah Mada University’s Faculty of Law, Oce Madril, assessed that budgeting the MBG through the education budget does not violate the constitution as long as it meets applicable provisions. He explained that the constitution mandates a minimum of 20 percent of the state budget for education. As long as the programme is directed at students, educators, and education personnel, and is approved through the state budget mechanism with the DPR, there is no breach of this provision. The hearing is part of the examination of three judicial review cases against the 2026 State Budget Law. The petitioners are challenging the inclusion of the MBG programme within the education budget, arguing that the provision could lead to overly broad interpretations, allowing unrelated expenditures to be charged to the education budget. They have requested the Constitutional Court to provide a clearer interpretation of the clause regarding “operational funding for the implementation of education” in the law.