Minister of Law Responds to Constitutional Court Ruling to Separate Free Nutritious Meal Budget from Education Funds

The Minister of Law, Supratman Andi Agtas, has responded to the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling which mandates that the budget for the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme should no longer be drawn from the education sector allocation within the State Budget (APBN). Supratman stated that the government will first conduct a comprehensive study of the ruling’s contents before determining any further steps. He noted that, as the Ministry of Law represents the President in MK cases, they have yet to receive an official copy of the decision.

“Once the decision is received, I will instruct the Director General of Legislation to submit it to me, and we will report it to the President,” Superatman said in Jakarta on Friday, 31 July 2026. This statement follows the court’s decision the previous day to partially grant a judicial review petition against Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the 2026 State Budget.

The Minister emphasised that the government cannot provide further commentary until the official copy of the ruling is received. He noted that the Ministry of Law will examine all legal considerations presented by the Court before reporting to the President, as part of the standard government mechanism for responding to Constitutional Court rulings involving national policy and state budget management.

Previously, the Constitutional Court ordered the government and the House of Representatives (DPR RI) to separate the MBG programme budget from the education allocation in the APBN. This directive was contained in the ruling for case Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, regarding the judicial review of Law Number 17 of 2025. However, the Court did not demand an immediate change to the current budget; instead, it granted the government and Parliament until the preparation of the 2028 State Budget to relocate the MBG funds from the education budget post, acknowledging that the budget is prepared annually. The Court’s reasoning was based on the assessment that the explanation of Article 22, paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 had excessively expanded the definition of operational funding for education.