MK Decides MBG Budget to be Separated from Education Budget Starting 2028

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) granted a portion of the request for a material test of Law Number 17 of 2025, which was requested by applicant number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 regarding the inclusion of the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) program budget in the education budget in the 2026 State Budget.

In its ruling, the MK stated that the MBG budget must be separated from the education budget in the State Budget, at the latest in the 2028 Budget Year State Budget or at the latest two years from the pronouncement of the a quo ruling.

"To judge. One, grant the applicants' request for a part," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo, reading the verdict, reported by ANTARA, Thursday, July 30.

In its ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that the explanation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the 2026 State Budget (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 179, State Gazette Supplement Number 7144) is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD) 1945 and has binding legal force conditionally as long as it is interpreted "only applies to the 2026 Budget Year so that for the following years of the State Budget, the nutritious meal program budget is not a major component of education, separated or not part of the operational budget of the education organizer and the separation referred to applies at the latest in the 2028 Budget Year State Budget or at most two years from the pronouncement of the a quo decision".

"Order the loading of this verdict in the state news of the Republic of Indonesia as appropriate," said Suhartoyo.

In the consideration read by Constitutional Judge Enny Nurbaningsih, he said that the norm of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 had been declared to provide fair legal certainty as guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, not as argued by the applicants.

According to the court, the arguments requested by the applicants a quo throughout the norms of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 are not justified according to the law.

Meanwhile, regarding the examination of the explanation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 has been stated not to provide a guarantee of fair legal certainty as guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and is not in line with the government's obligation to meet the priority of allocation of education funds at least 20 percent of the State Budget and 20 percent of the Regional Budget in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, as argued by the applicants.

"However, because the court's decision is not as requested by the applicants, the quo is justified by law in part," said Enny.

In the ruling, the Court stated that the explanation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 had created legal uncertainty, but also confirmed that the MBG program was substantively constitutional as a form of the government's priority program resulting from the 2024 election.

Therefore, according to Enny, the budget for the implementation of the MBG program must be prepared as a separate budget allocation or separate from the education budget in the State Budget Law.

"However, this does not necessarily imply the loss of the legal basis for the validity of the allocation of the MBG program budget in the 2026 State Budget which has been regulated in Law Number 17 of 2025," he said.

The Court understands that if the budget allocated for MBG is taken from the education budget that has been determined in the 2026 State Budget, it will imply that the 20 percent education budget limit of the 2026 State Budget will not be fulfilled. So that the 2026 State Budget becomes contrary to Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution.

On the other hand, if the education budget that has been allocated for the implementation of the MBG program is separated from the education budget, it requires the government to adjust the allocation of education budgets that are not allocated to the MBG program because it must meet the mandatory spending of the education budget before the 2026 fiscal year ends.

"At the same time, the government must also find other budget allocations outside the education budget that can support the operational implementation of the MBG program," said Enny.

The court also considered various legal issues that could potentially cause legal uncertainty and constitutional violations.

Therefore, the 2026 State Budget must still be declared constitutional even though the explanation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 has been declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding force as long as the material is no longer used for the State Budget in subsequent years.

Regarding the legal considerations above, continued Enny, because the State Budget Law has the characteristics of being valid once in a certain period (einmalig) and its existence will be replaced by the State Budget Law for the following fiscal year, so according to the court, the legal considerations still apply to the State Budget which is set for the following years.

"That is, the MBG program or other naming in the form of a nutritious meal distribution program within the scope of the education budget, must be issued or separated from the operational definition of the education organizer, so that it no longer uses the education budget allocation in the state budget," said Enny.