Legal Certainty Regarding the 20% Allocation of the Education Budget and Financing of MBG Following Constitutional Court Decision No. 40/PUU-XXIV/2026

Introduction 

On 30 July 2026, the Constitutional Court (MK) finally delivered its decision in Case No. 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the use of the education budget in the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN). The case was filed by Yayasan Taman Belajar Nusantara together with five individual applicants, who challenged the use of education funds to finance the Free Nutritious Meals (Makan Bergizi Gratis/MBG) program. This decision is important because it concerns the limits on the use of the education budget, which the Constitution requires to be allocated at least 20% of the APBN. The principal issue is whether such budget may be used to finance government programs that are not directly intended for educational needs, including the MBG program, without departing from the constitutional objective of fulfilling the right to education.

This paper examines the issue from a normative perspective, namely the relevant legal framework and constitutional considerations, rather than assessing government policy beyond the legal aspects at issue in the case.

Chronology

Constitutionally, the obligation to allocate a minimum of 20% for education derives from Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution and is reaffirmed in Article 49 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System.

In APBN practice, the issue first became apparent in APBN 2025, when the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program had already been budgeted at Rp71 trillion and placed under the National Nutrition Agency, with the principal components consisting of food expenditure and other supporting expenditure. Upon entering APBN 2026, the Government included the MBG program in the education budget in the amount of Rp223.6 trillion out of a total education budget of Rp769.1 trillion, while the total MBG requirement stated in the APBN 2026 presentation was Rp335 trillion. To do so, the Government and the DPR added an Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law No. 17 of 2025 concerning the APBN for Fiscal Year 2026, stating that operational funding for the provision of education includes nutritious meal programs at institutions related to the provision of education, both general and religious. At the same time, the education budget is also used for items genuinely related to education, such as salaries and allowances for teachers and lecturers, BOS, BOP PAUD, PIP, KIP Kuliah, Sekolah Rakyat, Sekolah Unggul Garuda, and school revitalization programs.

Issues Challenged by the Applicants

The applicants set out the alleged conflict between the challenged norms in two arguments: 

• The Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law is contrary to fulfillment of the 20% education budget requirement as mandated by Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, as elaborated in several substantive points, namely: 

1. The 20% Mandatory Spending Requirement under Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution Is Substantive and Protective 

The 20% mandatory spending requirement for the education budget as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution is substantive and protective. This provision constitutes a constitutional guarantee to ensure the availability of adequate funding for the provision of education, while also limiting governmental discretion so that the education budget is not reduced or diverted for other sectoral interests. Accordingly, such allocation must be used to finance the core needs of the provision of education and cannot be satisfied through administrative classification or the inclusion of cross-sectoral programs that are not directly related to the function of education. 

2. The Provision of Education under Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution Refers to the Pedagogical Function, Not General Welfare Intervention

The 20% education budget should, in principle, be directed toward activities that have a direct relationship with the pedagogical function, namely the learning process and the development of students' knowledge, skills, and character. Meanwhile, the MBG Program is essentially a nutrition and health fulfillment program falling within the sphere of social welfare. Although MBG may support students' readiness and concentration to learn, such benefit is indirect and does not constitute the primary pedagogical function. Therefore, classifying MBG as part of the education budget merely to satisfy the mandatory spending requirement may blur the constitutional boundary between the education function and the social welfare function.

3. The Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law Causes a Substantive Distortion of the 20% Education Budget Mandatory Spending Requirement

The Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law is considered potentially capable of shifting the substantive meaning of the 20% mandatory spending requirement for the education budget by including Rp223.5 trillion in MBG Program funding as part of the education budget. In substance, however, MBG is a nutrition and health fulfillment program that is not directly related to the core function of providing education. Such policy potentially reduces fiscal space for financing pedagogical needs, including the State's obligations in the provision of basic education. As a result, fulfillment of the minimum 20% education budget requirement risks becoming merely an administrative fulfillment through a change in budget classification, while the proportion of the budget actually used to finance the core functions of education is reduced. Such condition is considered inconsistent with Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

4. The Holistic Human Development Approach Cannot Serve as a Basis for Expanding the Education Budget Regime

The holistic human development approach cannot serve as a basis for including the MBG Program in the education budget. The 1945 Constitution regulates separately the State's obligations in the fields of education (Article 31), health (Article 28H), and social welfare (Article 34), such that each has a different purpose and scope. Although the fulfillment of nutritional needs may improve students' readiness to learn, the principal objective of MBG remains the fulfillment of nutrition and health needs, rather than the provision of education. Therefore, including MBG as part of the education budget solely to satisfy the 20% mandatory spending requirement may blur the boundary between the education function and the social welfare function. Consequently, the constitutional guarantee of funding specifically intended for the provision of education may shift into mere fulfillment of a budgetary target through administrative reclassification.

5. Comparison with the Administration of Nutritious Meal Programs within Education Budget Frameworks in Other Countries

Budget administration practices in various countries, such as Brazil and the United States, demonstrate that education budgets are separated from budgets for nutrition and social welfare programs. In Brazil, legislation expressly prohibits charging food assistance costs to the education budget, whereas in the United States, school lunch programs are administered and funded through the Department of Agriculture, rather than through the education budget. Such separation is intended to ensure that the education budget remains focused on the core needs of the provision of education and is not affected by the financing dynamics of food programs. This approach is also consistent with the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), which distinguishes the education function from the social protection function. Accordingly, allocating the MBG Program to the education budget is considered potentially capable of blurring the boundaries of the education budget function as contemplated by Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

• Article 22 paragraph (3) and the Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law Contravene the Principle of Legal Certainty Guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution

The Applicant argued that the 20% education mandatory spending requirement as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution is substantive and protective, such that the budget must be used for the education function and may not be diverted to finance programs in other sectors. The inclusion of the MBG Program as part of the operational costs of the provision of education in the Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law was considered contrary to that principle because MBG is a program whose primary function lies in the field of health and nutrition fulfillment, rather than the provision of education. In addition, an Elucidation may not expand or establish a new norm that is not contained in the body of the article. The Applicant requested that the Constitutional Court annul the Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of the 2026 APBN Law and construe Article 22 paragraph (3) restrictively to mean that the education budget includes operational funding for the provision of education and does not include the MBG program, and declare that such construction shall apply mutatis mutandis to the regulation of the education budget in subsequent APBN laws. To prevent the a quo norm from expiring before legal certainty is obtained and to stop the constitutional harm currently being suffered by the Applicant, the Applicant requested that the Constitutional Court prioritize the examination and render its decision as soon as possible.

Decision

The Constitutional Court adjudged as follows:

1. To grant the Applicants' petition in part.

2. To declare that the Elucidation to Article 22 paragraph (3) of Law Number 17 of 2025 concerning the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2025 Number 179, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 7144) is not contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and shall remain legally binding subject to the condition that it is construed to mean that:

• • such provision shall apply only to the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year 2026; and

  • for the State Revenue and Expenditure Budgets of subsequent years, the budget for the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) Program that does not constitute a core component of education must be separated and shall not form part of the operational budget for the provision of education;

  • such budgetary separation must be implemented no later than the APBN for Fiscal Year 2028 or at the latest two years from the pronouncement of the a quo Decision.

3. To order the publication of this Decision in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as prescribed by law.

4. To dismiss the Applicants' petition in all other respects.

Through this decision, the Constitutional Court affirmed that an Elucidation to an article that includes the MBG program as part of the "operational provision of education" constitutes an unlawful expansion of meaning (a concealed amendment to the law). However, the Constitutional Court did not immediately require the separation of the MBG budget from the education budget in APBN 2027. APBN 2027 is treated as a transitional period to provide the lawmakers with an opportunity to adjust the budget structure and requirements. Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih explained that the granting of the deadline takes into account the time required to recalculate and restructure the APBN requirements. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court determined that the separation of the MBG program budget that does not constitute a core component of education from the operational budget for the provision of education must be carried out no later than APBN 2028 or two years from the pronouncement of the decision. 

Furthermore, in the preparation of the APBN for subsequent years, the MBG budget must be separated from the 20% allocation of education funds. The Constitutional Court determined that such 20% funds are exclusively for core components of education, such as students, educators/education personnel, facilities and infrastructure, curriculum, and educational evaluation. Although its budget must be separated, the MBG program itself remains valid as a priority program. 

Key Points of the Decision

• Gradual application of protection of the education budget. 

It is noteworthy that, although the Court considered the use of the education budget for MBG to be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate, the consequences of that assessment do not take effect immediately. The Government is granted a two-year transitional period, so that the financing scheme for MBG through the education budget may still be maintained until adjustments are made no later than APBN 2028.

• Consequences for the APBN structure. 

Ultimately, this decision requires the Government to seek sources of financing for MBG outside the minimum 20% allocation of the education budget. Accordingly, no later than APBN 2028, the continuation of MBG will depend on the Government's ability to accommodate its financing needs without counting it as part of fulfillment of education mandatory spending.

Matters Requiring Attention Following the Decision 

• Restructuring of Budget Items and Correction of the Fiscal Framework: The Government and the DPR RI must correct the fiscal framework by moving the financing of the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program outside the allocation for the education function.

• Gradual Changes During the Transitional Period from the 2027 Draft APBN to APBN 2028: Consideration should be given to having the Government demonstrate respect for the Constitutional Court's Decision and constitutional good faith by beginning to gradually reduce the MBG budget's dependence on education funds before the APBN 2028 deadline.

• Affirmation of a Pure Allocation for Core Education Components: In Fiscal Year 2028, the Government must restore the 20% share of the education budget as a pure allocation focused on fulfilling the five main pillars: improving the quality and welfare of educators, providing school facilities and infrastructure, curriculum development, assistance with student access, and strengthening evaluation of the education system. The Government needs to ensure that expenditures satisfy the criterion of a direct core relationship with the education function.

• Strengthening Oversight and Transparency of the APBN Structure: The Government needs to increase transparency and accountability regarding the details of education budget expenditures in APBN and APBD documents so that the public can exercise social control over the activities.

Closing 

Constitutional Court Decision Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 essentially affirms that financing of the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program may not, on an ongoing basis, be counted as part of the minimum 20% allocation of the education budget. The decision does not restrict the continuation of MBG as a government program, but restricts its source of financing so as not to reduce the allocation constitutionally intended for the provision of education.

Notably, that limitation does not take effect immediately. The Court maintains the validity of the arrangement in APBN 2026 and provides a transitional period through Fiscal Year 2027. Accordingly, there is a period during which the financing scheme that has been constitutionally challenged may still be maintained before the separation of financing takes full effect.

Going forward, the principal challenge in implementing the Decision lies in determining the expenditure components that may be counted as the education budget. The Government needs to ensure that every expenditure charged to the minimum 20% allocation has a direct core relationship with the education function, so that fulfillment of mandatory spending is not achieved merely through budget classification, but continues to reflect its constitutional designation.