University Students Challenge Pesantren Law, Highlight 20% Education Budget Requirement
Two students from Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Indonesia (UNUSIA), Muh Adam Arrofiu Arfah and Isfa’zia Ulhaq, have filed a constitutional challenge against provisions in Law No. 18/2019 concerning Pesantren (Islamic boarding schools). The students requested that the Constitutional Court examine the constitutionality of Article 48, paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Pesantren Law.
During the initial hearing held on Friday, 27 February, the petitioners highlighted concerns regarding the constitutional requirement for a minimum 20% of the national budget to be allocated to education, arguing that the current proportion is problematic.
The challenged provisions state that the central government shall assist in funding pesantren operations through the national budget according to state fiscal capacity and applicable laws, whilst regional governments shall provide similar support through regional budgets according to their authority and applicable laws.
In case number 75/PUU-XXIV/2026, Adam argued that year-on-year growth in education budgets demonstrates that phrases such as “according to state fiscal capacity” and “according to their authority” are not objective justifications. He contended that the state has proven to possess substantial fiscal capacity, including for funding national priority programmes such as free nutritious meals, which reached trillion-rupiah values in 2026.
The petitioners argued that the primary issue does not lie in limitations of state fiscal capacity, but rather in the normative design and budgetary allocation priorities that do not place pesantren among recipients of guaranteed funding equivalent to other sectors. This comparison reveals an imbalance in priorities within education budget policy, with short-term operational programmes receiving substantial and structured budgetary support, whilst pesantren education—which is historically, sociologically, and constitutionally part of the national education system—remains dependent on open-ended and conditional provisions.
“When the state is able to allocate very large budgets for certain programmes, yet simultaneously fails to provide certain operational guarantees for pesantren, there are strong indications that the phrase in the article in question is no longer rational and proportional in the context of actual fiscal conditions,” Adam stated.
The petitioners therefore challenged the constitutionality of the phrases conditioning pesantren funding on “state fiscal capacity” and “authority”, arguing that these potentially diminish the certainty of education funding guarantees as mandated by Article 31, paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
During the hearing chaired by Deputy Constitutional Court Chairman Saldi Isra, Constitutional Court Justice Ridwan Mansyur raised concerns about the petition’s substantive focus on pesantren regulation within the law. The regulation distinguishes between pesantren and madrasah (Islamic schools), but he noted that the petitioners need to clarify their position regarding non-formal pesantren that seek state budget allocation.
“If the law includes two categories—pesantren and madrasah—you must clearly explain whether the non-formal pesantren you refer to wish to receive state budget injection,” he stated.
The Constitutional Court judges granted the petitioners 14 days to revise their petition, with amendments to be submitted no later than 12 March 2026.