The Constitutional Court Rules: After Free Nutritious Meals, What Else?
The Constitutional Court has finally provided a two-year window for the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) budget to no longer be calculated as part of the mandatory 20 per cent education budget allocation. In Decision Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, the Court emphasised that legislative explanations must not expand the meaning of norms established within the body of the law. The Court also interpreted the phrase ‘operational implementation of education’ to mean financing directly related to the educational process. In other words, the education budget should be dedicated to matters that tangibly support the teaching and learning process.
The issue is that our education budget grows within a fragmented structure. Education funds flow into various ministries, agencies, and financing schemes with diverse objectives. What other items need to be reviewed?
State-Affiliated Schools Share the Budget
It must not be forgotten that part of the national education budget is also allocated to state-affiliated schools (Sekolah Kedinasan) under various technical ministries. Specifically, budgets that are administratively considered part of the education function are not entirely dedicated to public education services that reach the majority of students. This situation raises the question of whether the funding for state-affiliated schools should remain part of the 20 per cent education budget mandate or be funded through the respective ministries’ budget ceilings.
Melchias Markus Mekeng, a member of Commission XI of the House of Representatives (DPR), addressed this issue during a working meeting with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Development Planning, the Governor of Bank Indonesia (BI), and the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Financial Services Authority (OJK) in Jakarta on Thursday (3/7/2025).
Although former Finance Minister Sri Mulyani previously stated that the budget for state-affiliated schools is not counted as part of the national education budget—which is set at a minimum of 20 per cent of the State Budget (APBN)—this statement is doubted by several parties, including JPPI and ICW. They believe that the use of education funds for state-affiliated schools has long been occurring.
This debate does not negate the importance of state-affiliated schools. Institutions such as STAN, IPDN, Poltekim, and others play a strategic role in preparing state apparatus. However, when funding falls within the same education budget portion as public education, it triggers public doubt regarding the fairness of budget distribution. On one hand, state-affiliated schools serve a relatively limited number of students. On the other hand, primary and secondary education must meet the needs of Indonesian students who still face issues regarding quality, facilities, and service equality.
The Illusion of Reserve Funds
A study by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) regarding the management of the education budget highlights the existence of reserve funds and several financing items that are not directly linked to ongoing education programmes. In the 2024 State Budget, for example, approximately Rp 5 trillion was allocated in the form of financing reserve funds. This figure increased in the 2025 State Budget. These funds are still recorded as part of the education function, but have not been fully converted into educational services that can be felt within the same fiscal year.
These findings show a discrepancy between budget allocation and actual expenditure. From a fiscal management perspective, reserve funds can be justified as an instrument to maintain long-term financing continuity. However, from the perspective of public service effectiveness, funds that have not been realised into decent classrooms, teacher training, school operational assistance, or other learning services certainly do not produce direct benefits for students. Therefore, to what extent does the increase in the education budget truly translate into improved learning quality, rather than merely adding figures to the State Budget documents?
Reorganising the Definition of the Education Budget
Constitutional Court Decision Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 provides a new direction in understanding the education budget. The Court stated that the phrase ‘operational implementation of education’ cannot be interpreted too broadly to include programmes not directly related to the educational process. This clarification opens the door to reviewing the definition of the education budget to ensure greater consistency with the constitutional mandate.
At the same time, education expenditure needs to be directed towards sectors proven to have a direct impact on educational quality, such as improving teacher competence and welfare, rehabilitating damaged classrooms, providing learning facilities, strengthening literacy and numeracy, transforming technology-based learning, and ensuring equitable access to education in disadvantaged areas. Cross-sectoral programmes remain important, but their funding should not diminish the primary focus of the education budget, which is to improve the quality of the student learning process.
Have all the components that have historically been included in the education function truly met the meaning of ‘operational implementation of education’ as emphasised by the Court? If the explanation does not yet meet this, then the government’s task is not only to remove the MBG programme but to ensure that every rupiah of the education budget truly returns to education.