Constitutional Court Rules Free Nutritious Meal Programme Constitutional, But Budget Must Be Separated from Education Budget

The Constitutional Court (MK) has declared the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme to be in accordance with the constitution. The statement was delivered by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih while reading the considerations for Decision Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Thursday. “The Court also affirms that the nutritious meal distribution programme in the form of the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme is substantively constitutional as a manifestation of the government’s priority programme resulting from the 2024 General Election,” she said. Consequently, she stated that the budget for implementing the MBG programme must be structured as a separate budget allocation. The budget formulation must also be separated from the education budget within the State Budget Law. However, the MK’s ruling does not automatically imply the loss of the legal basis for the MBG programme’s budget allocation in the 2026 State Budget, especially as it has been regulated in Law Number 17 of 2025. “The Court understands that if the budget allocated for MBG is removed from the education budget as stipulated in the 2026 State Budget, the implication is the non-fulfilment of the education budget floor of at least 20 per cent of the 2026 State Budget. This would actually cause the 2026 State Budget to contradict Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution,” Enny said. Conversely, if the education budget already allocated for the MBG programme is separated from the education budget, the government must adjust the education budget allocation not allocated to the MBG programme. This is because the education budget must meet the mandatory education spending requirement before the 2026 fiscal year ends. Meanwhile, the government must also seek other budget allocations outside the education budget to support the operational implementation of the MBG programme. In this regard, the Court needs to consider the interests of the state as well as the resulting impacts and potential legal issues that could cause legal uncertainty and violations of constitutional rights. “Therefore, the 2026 State Budget must remain declared constitutional, even though the Explanation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 has been declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally lacks binding legal force as long as the material is no longer used for subsequent State Budgets,” she said.