UGM Students File Amicus Curiae with Constitutional Court in Free Nutritious Meal Programme Lawsuit

The UGM Student Alliance Hub has submitted an amicus curiae document in the formal review of the State Budget Law, which questions the use of the education budget for the free nutritious meal programme. The amicus curiae document was submitted to the Constitutional Court on Thursday, 9 July 2026. According to UGM Student Alliance Hub Coordinator Alvino Kusumabrata, the document requests the Court to grant all the petitions in Case Number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026, which specifically examines Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 State Budget Law. The Student Alliance assesses that Article 22 paragraph (3) and its elucidation have legitimised the inclusion of the MBG programme budget into the education budget allocation. Consequently, funds that should be prioritised for the core functions of education are instead used to finance a programme outside the scope of national education provision. Alvino stressed that using the education budget for MBG deviates from the constitutional mandate requiring the government to allocate at least 20 per cent of the state and regional budgets to the education sector. He considers MBG a political programme not directly related to the provision of education. ‘Therefore, the UGM Student Hub is seeking to demand through this amicus curiae intervention that the petition filed by our civil coalition friends and teachers be accepted and granted by the esteemed Panel of Judges,’ Alvino said at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Thursday. This amicus curiae document was jointly prepared by the Centre for Legal and Social Justice Studies at the UGM Faculty of Law, the UGM Student Union, and the Justicia Student Council of the UGM Faculty of Law. Alvino stated that its preparation also received support and mentoring from several lecturers at the UGM Faculty of Law. UGM Student Union Chairperson Meshi added that the use of the education budget for MBG has affected the higher education ecosystem. According to him, various universities, including UGM, are facing budget constraints amidst cuts to education assistance. Meanwhile, many prospective new students are currently struggling to pay single tuition fees, and quotas for assistance such as the Indonesia Smart Card for Higher Education have also been reduced. Given these conditions, campuses have often been targeted and pressured not to raise tuition fees and to provide as much education assistance as possible. Yet, according to Meshi, the root of the problem lies in the central government’s policy of diverting a portion of the education budget to finance the MBG programme. On this basis, he considers the Constitutional Court’s ruling important to prevent similar practices from recurring in the drafting of the 2027 State Budget. ‘We request the judges to grant the judicial review so that the government no longer uses the education budget for MBG this year or in subsequent years,’ he said. The case, registered as Number 55/PUU-XXIV/2026, which reviews the 2026 State Budget Law, was filed by Reza Sudrajat, a contract teacher from Karawang, West Java. He claims to have been disadvantaged by the policy of including the MBG programme budget within the education budget. The disputed Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 State Budget Law stipulates an education budget of more than Rp 769 trillion, or 20 per cent of the total state budget. However, in the elucidation of the article, the government includes a portion of the education budget to fund the MBG programme. Based on Presidential Regulation Number 188 of 2025, Rp 223 trillion of the total education budget is allocated to the National Nutrition Agency as the main implementer of the MBG programme. In his petition, Reza requests the Constitutional Court to declare Article 22 paragraph (3) and its elucidation contrary to the 1945 Constitution. He also requests the Court to declare that the education budget cannot be used to finance the MBG programme.