Lawsuit Against 2026 State Budget Law in Constitutional Court Highlights Alleged Cause of Mass Layoffs of PPPK Teachers
A judicial review hearing of the 2026 State Budget Law (UU APBN) at the Constitutional Court has revealed alleged serious impacts of the Free Nutritious Meals Programme (MBG) on the fate of teachers in the regions. The petitioners assess that the policy has triggered layoffs of teachers holding Government Employee with Work Agreement (PPPK) status and reduced the welfare of educators due to a shift in budget priorities.
During the hearing for case Number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday (15/6), petitioner witness Iman Zanatul Haeri stated that the MBG programme had resulted in mass layoffs of PPPK teachers and honorary teachers in several areas. “After the 2026 MBG was implemented, there were mass layoffs of PPPK teachers who were considered already prosperous, and also honorary teachers. Honorary teachers who had been promoted to part-time PPPK status also received salaries below those of honorary teachers,” Iman said before the panel of judges.
According to Iman, this phenomenon is not confined to one region but is spread across various areas in Indonesia. He noted that dozens of PPPK teachers had their contracts terminated, while other regions are experiencing similar problems. “In Tuban, 39 PPPK teachers had their contracts terminated. And in various places, Cianjur, West Java, East Lombok, there are many,” he stated.
Beyond the layoffs, Iman highlighted the condition of teachers who continue working with part-time PPPK status but receive income deemed inadequate. He mentioned that a number of teachers only earn a few hundred thousand rupiah per month. “In Langkat, North Sumatra, and in Blitar, there are part-time PPPK teachers paid Rp500,000 per month. In Sumedang, it is Rp50,000,” he revealed.
In his testimony, Iman also presented the results of a survey of 239 teachers which he said demonstrated various impacts of the MBG policy on the education sector. The survey findings include an increased workload for teachers, reduced teaching time, delays in salary and allowance payments, reduced educational facilities, and the closure of opportunities for appointment as full-time PPPK teachers.
“So, from the survey, several main themes were expressed by fellow teachers: career uncertainty for teachers, declining welfare, allowance cuts, reduced education budgets, increased workload, policy inequality, and psychological impact. What do teachers say? ‘I doubt I will continue my career as a teacher,’” Iman recounted.
He stressed that the lawsuit against the 2026 State Budget Law was filed as a constitutional effort to fight for the rights of teachers deemed affected by the government’s budgeting policy. According to Iman, the constitutionally mandated minimum education budget allocation of 20 percent should remain directed towards strengthening the welfare and quality of the teaching profession.
“It should be remembered that when the fourth amendment in 2002 was delivered, as we see in the PowerPoint, the budget of at least 20 percent was indeed intended for teacher welfare. So, we hope this is truly for teachers and should not be taken by the MBG,” he said. The petitioners hope the Constitutional Court will consider the policy’s impact on the sustainability of the teaching profession and the quality of national education when examining the lawsuit against the 2026 State Budget Law.