Constitutional Court Rules Free Nutritious Meal Programme Cannot Be Funded from Education Budget

Jakarta, VIVA – The Constitutional Court (MK) has assessed that the policy of including the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme budget within the education budget is a way for the government to ensure that education spending meets the minimum allocation of 20 per cent of the State Budget (APBN), as mandated by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The provision requiring an education budget allocation of at least 20 per cent is set out in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which reads: “The State shall prioritise the education budget of at least twenty per cent of the state revenue and expenditure budget as well as of the regional revenue and expenditure budgets to fulfil the needs of national education provision.”

This was conveyed by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic whilst reading out the legal considerations in the hearing on the judicial review of Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the State Budget for the 2026 Fiscal Year, on Thursday, 30 July 2026.

“In this case, state intervention by charging the MBG budget to the education budget is, in effect, indirectly a ‘means’ of ensuring that the education budget can reach a figure of at least 20 per cent,” Daniel said.

According to the Court, this mechanism could in fact hamper the resolution of various fundamental problems still facing the education sector.

“For example, the provision of educational facilities and infrastructure and the fulfilment of teachers’ salaries and allowances, which are essential elements in the delivery of education,” Daniel continued.

In its considerations, the Court also found that the inclusion of the MBG programme in the Explanation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 on the 2026 State Budget had broadened the meaning of the norm contained in that article.

The Court took the view that this broadening of meaning instead gave rise to legal uncertainty. Moreover, the situation was considered capable of preventing the state from optimally fulfilling its obligation to prioritise the education budget as commanded by the Constitution.

On that basis, the Court declared that the Explanation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 conflicts with the guarantee of fair legal certainty as regulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The provision was also deemed inconsistent with the mandate of Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution regarding the obligation to allocate the education budget.

Nevertheless, the Court affirmed that the phrase “operational implementation of education” contained in Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 does not give rise to any constitutional problem.