Government Expert Outlines Constitutional Conditions for Free Nutritious Meals in Education Budget
The Constitutional Court (MK) has begun examining a challenge against provisions in Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the 2026 State Budget (APBN), which places the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme under the education budget. The judicial review hearing, registered under case numbers 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, 52/PUU-XXIV/2026, and 55/PUU-XXIV/2026, focused on hearing expert and witness testimony from the government and the House of Representatives. The central issue is Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law, which includes the MBG programme as part of operational funding for education delivery.
Sunny Ummul Firdaus, a constitutional law professor from Sebelas Maret University (UNS) Surakarta presented by the government, stated that placing the MBG programme within the education budget is constitutionally permissible under strict conditions. She argued that the programme must be viewed as direct support for learners to make the learning process more effective, rather than merely a general food programme. She outlined five constitutional requirements that must be met for the MBG programme to be validly included in the education budget.
She added that the assessment of the programme should use a functional approach, referencing the international Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) by the OECD. Under this system, subsidiary services to education include matters that support learning readiness, attendance, and student concentration at school.
In addition to the expert, the government presented Arief Purnama, Head of SMP Negeri 34 Bekasi, as a witness. He described the implementation of the MBG programme, which has been running at his school since August 2025 and serves 1,039 students. He confirmed that the programme has not disrupted teacher welfare or school operations. Teachers, whether civil servants, government employees with work agreements, or honorary staff, continue to receive their full salaries and allowances on time. The programme is managed by administrative staff, so it does not burden teachers. Arief also reported positive impacts, noting that students appear more focused and active, and no longer experience lethargy or drowsiness in the afternoon after participating in the communal lunch.
Meanwhile, the petitioners expressed concern that the wording of Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law and its elucidation are too broad. They argued that the phrase ‘operational funding for education delivery’ risks becoming a loophole for the government to include various cross-sectoral expenditures that are only indirectly related to education. The petitioners contended that without firm boundaries, this norm could erode the essence of the 20 percent education budget, which should be prioritised for improving instructional quality and core educational infrastructure.