MEDAN | INDATANEWS.COM- The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi) No. 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, delivered during a constitutional review hearing on July 30, 2026, represents one of the most significant constitutional rulings concerning state financial management in recent years. The Court did not terminate the national strategic program "Free Nutritious Meals" (Makan Bergizi Gratis/MBG); instead, it corrected the legal basis of its financing to ensure compliance with the mandate of the 1945 Constitution.
The ruling requires the government to separate the MBG budget from the education budget no later than the 2028 fiscal year. This correction reinforces a fundamental principle: even programs serving important public interests must be implemented within constitutional boundaries.
From the perspective of constitutional law, the Constitutional Court's decision has final and binding legal force from the moment it was announced in an open plenary session. There are no further legal remedies, such as appeals, cassation, or judicial review procedures. All state institutions are required to adjust their policy decisions and administrative actions in accordance with the ruling.
Compliance with
Constitutional Court decisions is not merely a moral obligation but a constitutional requirement. The transition period until the 2028 fiscal year demonstrates the Court's cautious approach, allowing fiscal adjustments to be carried out in a controlled manner without disrupting state budget stability or the continuity of public services.
Legal Consequences and the New MBG Financing Structure
The legal implications of the ruling are clear. Starting from the 2028 state budget, MBG funding may no longer be counted as part of the fulfillment of the constitutional minimum requirement of 20 percent education spending as stipulated in Article 31 Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
The government may continue implementing MBG as a policy initiative for human resource development; however, its funding must come from a separate budget allocation. This arrangement protects the fundamental role of the education budget, ensuring that its purpose is not expanded in a way that reduces financial capacity to improve national education quality.
The debate over using education funds for MBG has now received legal clarification through this ruling. Before the
Constitutional Court's review, the government and parliament had adopted a functional approach by considering student nutrition as part of the broader education ecosystem. While this approach had political arguments, it did not automatically align with constitutional interpretation.
The Constitutional Court subsequently established a clearer boundary through its binding interpretation of the 1945 Constitution. Since the ruling was issued, all budgetary decisions must comply with this constitutional interpretation.
Evaluation of MBG Governance and Program Integrity
The ruling also provides an important opportunity to evaluate the overall management of the MBG program. A program involving a very large budget cannot be assessed solely based on the amount of funds spent or its public popularity.
Its success must be measured through objective indicators, including distribution effectiveness, food quality and safety, accuracy in selecting beneficiaries, procurement efficiency, accountability in fund management, and a control system capable of preventing misuse from the planning stage. A public program gains legitimacy only when it delivers concrete benefits while being managed transparently.
The next challenge lies in strengthening administrative integrity. State funds amounting to hundreds of trillions of rupiah always carry the risk of moral hazards if strong oversight mechanisms are absent.
Reports of possible irregularities in procurement processes, alleged price markups, collusion among contractors, conflicts of interest, delays in distribution, or weak internal controls must be treated as serious warning signs. Such allegations must, of course, be proven through fair legal processes. However, the government should not wait for corruption cases to emerge before improving governance systems.
Long experience in managing national projects shows that corruption often results from weak governance structures rather than solely from individual intentions. A program as large as MBG must not become a source of economic benefit for certain groups while the quality of services provided to students is neglected.
Fiscal Policy Reform and Strengthening Transparency
The government and parliament should use the Constitutional Court's decision as a starting point for fiscal policy reform. Improvement should not merely involve shifting budget allocations but must be accompanied by a sustainable financing strategy, stronger oversight by the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK), the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), and internal supervisory units (APIP), as well as an open and technology-based procurement system.
Budget transparency must become a central principle so that the public can effectively monitor the use of state funds.
The significance of this ruling extends beyond the MBG program. The Constitutional Court has reminded all policymakers not to use the education budget as a general funding source for various programs based on overly broad interpretations.
Education funds represent a constitutional mandate to improve teacher quality, encourage research and innovation, develop educational infrastructure, expand scholarship opportunities, and enhance the quality of the national learning system.
The ruling emphasizes that the Constitution regulates not only the amount of expenditure but also protects the fundamental purpose of its use.
The responsibility now lies with the government and parliament to demonstrate their commitment to constitutional, transparent, accountable, and public-interest-oriented management of state finances.
(IDNC)By: Dr. Farid Wajdi, S.H., M.Hum
The author is the Founder of Ethics of Care.