Two University Students Challenge Pesantren Funding Law at Constitutional Court
Two university students have filed a judicial review petition against Law Number 18 of 2019 on Pesantren at Indonesia’s Constitutional Court. The case, registered as Number 75/PUU-XXIV/2026, challenges Article 48 paragraphs (2) and (3), which govern the funding of pesantren by both the central and regional governments.
The first petitioner is Muh. Adam Arrofiu Arfah and the second is Isfa’zia Ulhaq. The petitioners have highlighted issues surrounding legal certainty in pesantren funding and the equitable distribution of the education budget.
“As well as the constitutional guarantee of citizens’ right to education,” wrote one of the petitioners, Adam, in a statement received on Thursday, 19 February 2026.
The petitioners argue that pesantren are legally recognised as an integral part of the national education system. Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System explicitly recognises religious education as one category of education. This recognition was reinforced through Government Regulation Number 55 of 2007, which positions pesantren as an official subsystem of Islamic religious education.
“Under 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 said.
However, the petitioners contend there is 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 or measurably affirmed in statutory norms.
For the petitioners, the phrases “in accordance with the state’s financial capacity” and “in accordance with their authority” create a space for uncertainty, as they make pesantren funding dependent on policies that can change at will, “rather than on definite and structured constitutional obligations,” Adam said.
The Constitution, he noted, obliges the state to prioritise an education budget of at least 20 per cent of both the national budget (APBN) and regional budgets (APBD), as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. This obligation does not distinguish between types of education, meaning it normatively encompasses pesantren education as well. Yet in practice, pesantren have not received certainty in terms of prioritisation.
Adam noted that current national policy focuses on various programmes, including strategic initiatives such as the free nutritious meal programme (MBG), which falls under the operational costs of education component. The petitioners do not take issue with the existence of such programmes. However, they highlight the need for the state’s consistency in positioning education as a constitutional priority that should not depend on the policy preferences of any particular regime.
The petitioners stress the importance of establishing a threshold for the distribution of the education budget across every type and level of education. Without such a threshold, the 20 per cent education budget allocation risks being concentrated in certain sectors, whilst other sectors — including pesantren — receive only what remains after policy choices are made.
Adam said the petition is also grounded in the petitioners’ direct experience as members of the pesantren community. He acknowledged witnessing and experiencing first-hand how many pesantren still rely on community self-help and student contributions to sustain their educational operations.
This situation demonstrates that the state’s presence in fulfilling the right to pesantren education 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 Constitutional Court’s ruling is expected not only to provide legal certainty regarding the norms under review, but also to clarify the direction of the state’s role in guaranteeing justice and sustainability for pesantren education as an integral part of the national education system.