Key Points of the Pesantren Funding Lawsuit Filed with the Constitutional Court

Two university students have filed a judicial review against pesantren funding provisions in Law No. 18 of 2019 on Pesantren with the Constitutional Court. The lawsuit, registered as Case No. 75/PUU-XXIV/2026, challenges Articles 48(2) and 48(3), which govern pesantren funding by the central and regional governments.

The two students, Muh. Adam Arrofiu Arfah and Isfa’zia Ulhaq, have highlighted concerns over the legal certainty of pesantren funding and the equitable distribution of education budgets. “As well as the constitutional guarantee of citizens’ right to education,” wrote one of the petitioners, Adam, in a press release received on Thursday, 19 February 2026.

Uncertainty in Pesantren Funding

Adam and Isfa’zia argued that pesantren are juridically recognised as an integral part of the national education system. Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System explicitly recognises religious education as one type of education.

This was further affirmed through Government Regulation No. 55 of 2007, which positions pesantren as an official subsystem of Islamic religious education. “With this normative framework, pesantren cannot be positioned as informal entities or mere supplements, but rather as a legitimate part of the national education system guaranteed by the state,” the petitioners stated.

However, the petitioners argued there exists a constitutional paradox in pesantren education policy. On one hand, the state has recognised pesantren as part of the national education system. On the other hand, guarantees for their operational funding are not explicitly and measurably affirmed in statutory provisions.

According to the petitioners, the phrases “in accordance with the state’s financial capacity” and “in accordance with its authority” create uncertainty by making pesantren funding dependent on policies that can change at will. “Rather than on definite and structured constitutional obligations,” Adam said.

Reference to the Free Nutritious Meals Programme

The petitioners also noted that the constitution requires the state to prioritise an education budget of at least 20 per cent of the national and regional budgets, as stipulated in Article 31(4) of the 1945 Constitution.

This obligation does not distinguish between types of education, meaning it normatively encompasses pesantren education as well. However, the petitioners argued that in practice, pesantren have not received certainty in terms of prioritisation.

According to Adam, current national policy focuses on various programmes, including strategic initiatives such as the free nutritious meals programme (MBG), particularly as that programme falls under the operational costs of education component.

Whilst not challenging the existence of the MBG programme itself, the petitioners highlighted the need for the state to be consistent in positioning education as a constitutional priority that should not depend on the policy preferences of any particular regime.

Establishing Threshold Requirements for Education Budget Distribution

The petitioners also emphasised the importance of establishing threshold requirements for education budget distribution across every type and level of education. They argued that without such thresholds, the 20 per cent education budget allocation risks being concentrated in certain sectors, whilst other sectors, including pesantren, receive only residual policy allocations.

Adam said the petition is also grounded in the petitioners’ direct experience as members of the pesantren community. He has witnessed and experienced how many pesantren still rely on community self-funding and student contributions to sustain their educational operations.

This situation demonstrates that the state’s presence in fulfilling the educational rights of pesantren has not been fully guaranteed in a normative and structured manner.

The petitioners have asked the Constitutional Court to reaffirm the consistency between the recognition of pesantren as part of the national education system and the state’s obligation to guarantee their funding.

The petitioners hope the Constitutional Court’s ruling will not only provide legal certainty regarding the provisions under review, but also clarify the state’s presence in ensuring justice and sustainability for pesantren education as an integral part of the national education system.