Constitutional Court Decision 52/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of the education funding provision of Undang-Undang 20/2003 on the national education system and of the education budget clause of Undang-Undang 17/2025 on the 2026 State Budget, whose elucidation counts a nutritious meals programme as part of the funding of education operations.^[1][2] The petition was brought by an individual citizen, a university lecturer.^[2:1] It is one of three constitutional review cases on the education budget of the 2026 State Budget pronounced on 30 July 2026, with decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 and decision 55/PUU-XXIV/2026.^[3][4]

The Court rejected an interim application asking that one of the justices be excluded from the case. It declared the petition inadmissible as to Pasal 49(1) of the education law, which it found unclear, and as to the elucidations of Pasal 49(1) and Pasal 22(3), which earlier decisions had already struck down or given a conditional reading. Applying the reasoning of decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, it held Pasal 22(3) itself constitutional and rejected the rest of the petition.^{[5][3:1][4:1]}

¶ Background and petition

The case sits in the field of education law and of public finance. Pasal 49(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2003 provides that education funds other than educators' salaries and the costs of official (kedinasan) education are to be allocated at a minimum of 20 per cent of the state budget (APBN) and of regional budgets (APBD), and its elucidation stated that the funding could be met in stages. Pasal 22(3) of Undang-Undang 17/2025 provides that the education budget includes the funding of education operations (operasional penyelenggaraan pendidikan), and its elucidation states that such funding includes a nutritious meals programme at institutions connected with general or religious education.^[2:2]

The petition was received and registered on 2 February 2026 and revised on 23 February 2026.^[6] Its author argued that Pasal 49(1) merely copied the 20 per cent floor of Pasal 31(4) of the Constitution without defining the core components of education, leaving the budget open to political choice, and that Pasal 22(3) and its elucidation illustrated the result. Relying on the distinction drawn by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development between core educational purposes and other education-related expenditure, the petition treated the meals programme as a supporting rather than a core component. Its grounds cited the detailed 2026 budget, which in the petitioner's account placed Rp223.5 trillion of meals spending within an education budget of the central government of Rp470.4 trillion.^[2:3][7] The relief sought conditional readings of all four provisions that would have excluded the meals programme from the 20 per cent floor.^[7:1]

The Court accepted that the petitioner, as a lecturer and taxpayer, had standing.^[2:4] It heard the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President on 14 April 2026, together with experts and witnesses called by the petitioner, the DPR and the President. A group of lecturers in constitutional and administrative law organised as the Constitutional and Administrative Law Society took part as a related party, and the Court also read amicus curiae submissions.^[8]

¶ Interim application

The petitioner asked, as an interim (provisi) measure, that Justice Adies Kadir take no part in the case, because he had been involved in making Undang-Undang 17/2025 as a Deputy Speaker of the DPR. The Judges' Deliberation Meeting of 20 July 2026 found that there was no conflict of interest and no relevance between the justice and the substance of the petition, and the request was rejected.^[5:1][4:2]

¶ Ruling

On Pasal 49(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2003, the Court recalled that decision 24/PUU-V/2007 of 20 February 2008 had struck down the phrase gaji pendidik dan ("educators' salaries and"). Because the petition cited the provision as though that phrase still stood, the Court held the citation improper and the petition on that provision unclear (obscuur). The elucidation of Pasal 49(1) had been declared unconstitutional by decision 011/PUU-III/2005 of 19 October 2005, and so could no longer be reviewed; the challenge to it had lost its object.^[3:2]

The elucidation of Pasal 22(3) of Undang-Undang 17/2025 had been given a conditional reading earlier the same day by decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026: it applies only to the 2026 budget, and in later budgets the meals programme, which is not a core component of education, is to be separated from the education operations budget no later than the 2028 budget, or two years from that decision. The challenge to the elucidation therefore also lost its object.^[3:3] On Pasal 22(3) itself, the Court applied mutatis mutandis its reasoning in decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, which read "education operations" as the core components without which education cannot be delivered, and held the petitioner's argument unfounded.^[9][10]

The operative order rejected the interim application, declared the petition inadmissible as to Pasal 49(1) and its elucidation of Undang-Undang 20/2003 and the elucidation of Pasal 22(3) of Undang-Undang 17/2025, and rejected the remainder. The decision was reached by nine justices on 20 July 2026 and pronounced on 30 July 2026, with Suhartoyo presiding; no separate opinion is recorded in the decision.^[4:3]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 11 September 2026.^[11]

¶ See also

• Health sector regulation in Indonesia
• Constitutional Court Decision 241/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Education Budget Mandatory Spending and Student Nutrition: MK 52/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 11 September 2026)

¶ References