KOSPI Submits Conclusion in MBG Budget Lawsuit to Constitutional Court

The Coalition to Save Indonesian Education (KOSPI) has submitted its conclusion document in the judicial review case of the 2026 State Budget Law (UU APBN), which questions the use of the education budget for the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme. The conclusion for case Number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 was submitted to the Constitutional Court on Thursday, 9 July 2026.

Daniel Winarta, legal counsel for the petitioners, stated that the submitted conclusion contains a summary of the trial facts, including the government’s statement that the budget for the National Nutrition Agency increased fourfold compared to the previous year, accompanied by a decrease in regional transfer budgets. As a result, teacher welfare and the development of school infrastructure have been hampered.

According to Daniel, the judicial review of the 2026 State Budget Law is being conducted to ensure that education budget management remains in line with the constitutional mandate. “We are striving to save education in Indonesia by restoring it to the constitution,” he said on Thursday, 9 July 2026.

Satriwan Salim, Coordinator of the Education and Teachers Association (P2G) and one of the petitioners in the case, said the inclusion of the Rp 223 trillion MBG budget within the education budget post has impacted the fulfilment of students’ educational rights and teacher welfare. For instance, this policy has meant the government has not yet fully implemented the Constitutional Court’s ruling stipulating that basic education must be provided free of charge. According to him, the public still has to bear various education costs at the primary and secondary school levels.

On the other hand, teacher welfare also remains unresolved. State civil apparatus teachers with PPPK status, especially part-time PPPK teachers, have not yet obtained career or welfare certainty from regional governments. P2G notes that honorary teachers and part-time PPPK teachers currently receive only Rp 50,000 to Rp 300,000 per month.

According to Satriwan, this issue is even more stark because approximately 30 per cent of the total education budget of Rp 769 trillion is allocated to the National Nutrition Agency as the implementer of MBG. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education only receives around Rp 56 trillion. “It turns out that the inclusion of the MBG budget in the education budget is actually depriving our children and teachers of their educational or constitutional rights,” Satriwan stated.

He explained that the use of the education budget must refer to the mandate of Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution, which obliges the government to allocate a minimum of 20 per cent of the state and regional budgets to education. The education in question must also comply with the eight National Education Standards as stipulated in the National Education System Law. These eight standards cover graduate competency standards, content standards, process standards, educational assessment standards, educator standards, infrastructure standards, management standards, and financing standards.

MBG is considered not to be included in any of these National Education Standard components. “MBG does not fall into any of the eight National Education Standards. The government should first fulfil the main components of education,” said Satriwan. He then outlined various educational problems that are more urgent to resolve than the MBG programme. These issues include very low Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores and Academic Competency Test scores, as well as a World Bank assessment stating that many Indonesian children still experience functional illiteracy.

Given these problems, he said, state funds should be prioritised for improving learning quality, enhancing teacher welfare, strengthening the curriculum, and repairing educational facilities before financing additional programmes like MBG. The judicial review of the 2026 State Budget Law has been ongoing since February 2026 and is now entering its final stage. The case challenges Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 State Budget Law, which regulates the use of the education budget to finance the MBG programme. In this article, the education budget is set at Rp 769 trillion, or 20 per cent of the total state budget. However, Rp 223 trillion of this is allocated to the National Nutrition Agency as the main implementer of the MBG programme. In their petition, the applicants request that the Constitutional Court declare Article 22 paragraph (3) and its explanation unconstitutional. They also request that the Court declare that the education budget cannot be used to finance the MBG programme.