House Member Urges Stronger Checks and Balances in Free Nutritious Meal Programme
House of Representatives (DPR RI) Commission XIII member Marinus Gea has stated that the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) recommendation regarding the evaluation of the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme needs to be examined objectively and proportionally. He noted that Komnas HAM’s primary concern is not a critique of the programme’s objective, but rather the governance and oversight mechanisms applied in its implementation.
This was conveyed by Marinus Gea in response to Komnas HAM’s proposal urging the government to revise Presidential Regulation (Perpres) Number 115 of 2025 concerning the Free Nutritious Meal Programme. The revision is deemed necessary to strengthen programme governance to be more participatory, transparent, accountable, and equitable in accordance with human rights principles.
Marinus explained that the public needs to understand the substance of Komnas HAM’s recommendation fully to avoid misconceptions about the MBG programme. “What needs to be understood is that Komnas HAM is not criticising the goal of providing nutritious meals to the community. The concern lies in the governance aspect, especially when a single institution functions as regulator, operator, and supervisor simultaneously. This must be examined seriously to maintain public accountability,” Marinus said in a written statement on Tuesday (23/6/2026).
Nevertheless, he cautioned that the recommendation should not immediately serve as a basis for a major revision of the presidential regulation underpinning the programme. He argued that in the initial stages of a large-scale national programme, the government often requires a certain degree of centralisation to maintain implementation consistency across regions. Therefore, Marinus urged all parties to view every recommendation proportionally and based on data so as not to hinder the programme’s primary objective. “We must not let efforts to improve governance impede the acceleration of a programme whose benefits are urgently needed by the community. Therefore, every recommendation must be viewed proportionally and based on data,” he said.
Marinus assessed that one aspect requiring attention is the division of regulatory, operational, and supervisory functions within the National Nutrition Agency (BGN). He believes the DPR needs to request detailed explanations to ensure there is no overlap of authority that could reduce the programme’s accountability.
Beyond institutional governance, Marinus asserted that food safety must be a top priority in the implementation of the MBG programme. He described this issue as highly sensitive because it directly relates to the safety of beneficiaries. “Food safety is the most sensitive issue because it directly concerns the safety of beneficiaries. Therefore, supervision of this aspect must be strengthened and carried out continuously,” he stated.
He also encouraged that the success of the MBG programme not be measured solely by the number of beneficiaries or operational kitchens. According to him, success must be seen from the real impact felt by the community. “We need to measure whether this programme truly improves the nutritional quality of the community, reduces stunting rates, improves children’s health, and guarantees food safety. That should be the primary measure of success,” he revealed.
Regarding the proposed revision of the BGN Perpres, Marinus urged the DPR not to rush to a final conclusion. He noted that the monitoring process by Komnas HAM is still ongoing, requiring more comprehensive data and information from various parties, including BGN, the Ministry of Health, BPKP, and local governments. He added that if these aspects can be strengthened, the overarching goal of the Free Nutritious Meal Programme can still be achieved without sacrificing the principles of public accountability and good governance. “For the DPR, the most important substance is not whether the Perpres is revised or not, but ensuring the MBG programme has a strong system of checks and balances. Our focus must be on separating regulatory, operational, and supervisory functions, strengthening food safety, ensuring budget transparency, and measuring success based on nutritional quality,” Marinus concluded.