Education Budget and the Nutritious Meals Programme: MK 40/PUU-XXIV/2026

The Constitutional Court has set a deadline for separating the free nutritious meals programme from Indonesia's constitutionally mandated education budget. In decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced on 30 July 2026, the Court reviewed Pasal 22 paragraph (3) of Law No. 17 of 2025 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 and its Elucidation. The petition was brought by Yayasan Taman Belajar Nusantara, represented by Miftahol Arifin and Umran Usman, together with five individual petitioners: Dzakwan Fadhil Putra Kusuma, Muhammad Jundi Fathi Rizky, Rikza Anung Andita Putra, Sa'ed, and Indra Kusuma. At issue was whether the meals programme may be counted inside the twenty per cent of the state budget that Pasal 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution reserves for education.

Legal Reasoning

The petitioners set the question against a long line of the Court's own authority on the twenty per cent mandate. They recalled Decision 012/PUU-III/2005, which held that an education allocation below twenty per cent in a state budget law contradicts the command of Pasal 31 paragraph (4). It recalls Decision 026/PUU-III/2005, in which the Court restated that so long as the education budget has not reached twenty per cent the budget law will always conflict with the Constitution, while reserving the question of legal consequences for separate assessment against national and global economic conditions and the policy choices made by the government and the legislature for the fiscal year concerned. It further recalls Decision 026/PUU-IV/2006, where the Court treated the percentage of the education budget as a fact requiring no proof, Decision 24/PUU-V/2007 on the inclusion of educator salaries, and Decision 13/PUU-VI/2008, in which the Court stated that as guardian of the Constitution it cannot do otherwise than declare a statutory norm contrary to the 1945 Constitution where that norm disregards the obligation to prioritise twenty per cent of the state and regional budgets for education.

From that line the petition draws the proposition that the twenty per cent education budget may not be reduced or diverted to financing that is not directly connected to the conduct of national education, and that where the structure of the state budget shows core education functions financed below that threshold, the norm providing for it conflicts with Pasal 31 paragraph (4).

The petition then turns to what "the conduct of education" in Pasal 31 paragraph (4) covers. It treats Pasal 31 as a systematic whole across its five paragraphs, and concludes that the object the provision protects is the national education system rather than the whole of the social conditions surrounding a learner. The phrase is read as activity inherently connected to the design, delivery, and evaluation of the learning process within the national education system referred to in Pasal 31 paragraph (3), so that the twenty per cent allocation secures the continuity of that structure.

To fix the boundary, the petition works from Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System as the constitutional operationalisation of Pasal 31. The Court itself held in paragraphs [3.17.3] and [3.17.4] that the meals programme is not a main component of the education operational budget, that listing it in the Elucidation created a new norm and legal uncertainty, and that the programme must be given its own allocation in future budgets. It takes the definition of education in Pasal 1 point 1 of that law, identifying its mandatory elements as conscious and planned effort, a learning atmosphere, a learning process, and the development of a learner's potential, and treats those elements as the ontological limit of education. It reads Pasal 3, on the function of national education in developing capability and forming national character, as pedagogical in nature and not to be given a consumptive or distributive meaning, describing the provision as concerned with the transformation of capability through learning rather than the distribution of goods or social services. It notes the detailed system provisions in Pasal 35 to Pasal 45 on standards, curriculum, educators, and facilities, and observes that the same pedagogical understanding is reflected in Government Regulation No. 48 of 2008 on Education Funding, whose Pasal 3 classifies education costs on a limited basis.

The Ruling

The Court granted the petition in part. It declared the Elucidation of Pasal 22 paragraph (3) of Law No. 17 of 2025 not contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally binding, insofar as it is interpreted to mean that it "applies only to the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2026, so that for the State Budget of subsequent years the budget for the nutritious meals programme, which is not a main component of education, is separated from or does not form part of the operational budget for the conduct of education, and that separation applies at the latest in the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2028 or at most 2 (two) years from the pronouncement of this decision."

The Court ordered the decision published in the State Gazette, and rejected the petition as to the remainder. The record carries no dissenting opinion.

The practical effect is that the 2026 arrangement stands, while the treatment is time-limited. From the 2028 budget year at the latest, the nutritious meals programme must sit outside the education operational budget, and therefore outside the twenty per cent calculation, unless separated sooner within the two-year period the Court set.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

• Consult the official regulation text from government sources
• Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
• Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Correction (27 September 2026): this post was checked against the official text of MK 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 and corrected. What changed: Yayasan plus five individuals: Dzakwan Fadhil Putra Kusuma, Muhammad Jundi Fathi Rizky, Rikza Anung Andita Putra, Sa'ed, and Indra Kusuma; This line of authority, including 026/PUU-IV/2006, is the petition's (items 14-15); the Court's [3.16] reviews 011, 012, 026/PUU-III/2005, 24/2007, 13/2008, 3/PUU-XXII/2024; This is petition item 15, verbatim in substance, not the Court's finding; This is the petition's argument (items 16-18); the Court's reasoning ([3.17]) does not adopt this construction; Petition items 19-24; the Court records 'batas ontologis' only when summarising the petitioners ([3.7] angka 2). Also: 1 minor correction of detail. Report errors to contact@crpg.id.