Constitutional Court Targets Ruling on Free Nutritious Meal Programme Judicial Review by Next Month

The Constitutional Court (MK) is targeting to deliver its ruling on the lawsuit concerning the Free Nutritious Meal Programme (MBG) being funded from the education budget by July 2026, and has asked the government and the House of Representatives (DPR RI) to limit the number of expert witnesses presented at next week’s hearing.

This statement was made by Chief Justice Suhartoyo during the judicial review hearing of Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the 2026 State Budget for petitioners number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, number 52/PUU-XXIV/2026, and number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the Plenary Meeting Room, Building I of the MK, Jakarta, on Monday.

The issue arose from the government/president’s legal counsel proposing more than three experts to provide testimony at the follow-up hearing scheduled for next Tuesday (23/6). However, this request was not granted by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, who instructed that the number of experts from the government be equal to those from the DPR RI, namely three experts each for the three cases.

"From the president’s counsel, are experts being presented?" Suhartoyo asked the government’s legal representative.

"Yes, Your Honour, two experts per case, Your Honour," replied Zulhamsyah, Director of Litigation and Non-Litigation at the Ministry of Law, representing the government’s legal counsel.

Upon hearing that the number of witnesses exceeded three, Suhartoyo immediately interjected, reminding them of the hearing schedule which would not allow for examining four witnesses.

"Please don’t, it’s a matter of time," Suhartoyo cautioned, a point acknowledged by the government’s legal counsel.

Suhartoyo stated that the constitutional justices are striving to resolve the case by the end of this month at the latest, so as not to lose the substance of the petitioners’ requests.

"The MK will resolve this petition by the end of this month at the latest. So, by next month, the case should be decided. Thus, we will not lose the issue of what constitutes the petitioners’ provisional petition. Even if it is not in that context, it would be if it drags on longer," Suhartoyo explained.

The government’s legal counsel attempted to negotiate for four experts, but was again rejected by Suhartoyo.

"Four experts, Your Honour?" asked Zulmansyah.

"Three, the same as the DPR," Suhartoyo instructed.

After reaching an understanding, Suhartoyo adjourned the session, which will resume on Tuesday, 23 June 2026, at 08:30 WIB. The hearing is expected to be lengthy, considering the MK usually convenes sessions starting at 10:30 WIB.

"Therefore, we schedule it for Tuesday, 23 June 2026, at 08:30 WIB, and if necessary, it will run until noon regarding this hearing petition," Suhartoyo concluded.

Cases number 40, 52, and 55 are reviewing Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the 2026 State Budget. Case number 40/PUU-XXIV/2027 was filed by six petitioners, including Umran Usman and Miftahul, who granted power of attorney to A. Fahrur Rozi. Case number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Reza Sudrajat, and case number 52/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Rega Felix, acting as both principal and legal counsel for the two petitioners.

The petitioner for case number 52/PUU-XXIV/2026 is reviewing the material of two laws simultaneously, namely Law Number 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System and Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the 2026 State Budget.

These three petitions commenced preliminary hearings in February 2026, and four hearings have been held: on 11 March to hear statements from the DPR and the government; on 14 April to again hear statements from the DPR and the government; on 28 April to hear statements from related parties, the Education Research Foundation (ERC) and Prof. Hesti Armiwulan; and on 20 May to hear expert testimony from petitioner number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, Abdullah Ubaid Matraji.

In cases number 40 and 55, there are eight similar law review petitions received by the MK, while in case number 52, there are 36 similar law review petitions. These cases concern the MBG Programme being included in the national education budget allocation, which the petitioners argue has significant impacts.