Constitutional Court Decision 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of Pasal 22(3) of Undang-Undang 17/2025 on the 2026 State Budget and its elucidation, the provisions under which a nutritious meals programme was counted as part of the funding of education operations within the education budget.^[1] The petition was brought by an individual citizen, a non-permanent (honorer) teacher, and by an association of educators.^[1:1] 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 52/PUU-XXIV/2026.^[2][3]

The Court held that the association had not shown who could represent it in court and so lacked standing, while the teacher had standing. Applying the reasoning of decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, it held Pasal 22(3) constitutional; because that decision had already given the elucidation a conditional reading, the challenge to the elucidation had lost its object. The operative order declared the association's petition inadmissible, declared the teacher's petition inadmissible as to the elucidation, and rejected the rest.^{[1:2][2:1][4][3:1]}

¶ Background and petition

The case belongs to the field of public finance. 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.^[1:3] The petition was dated 25 January 2026, received and registered on 3 February 2026, and revised on 25 February 2026.^[5]

The petitioners argued that the provisions created legal uncertainty by making room for the meals programme within the 20 per cent of the state budget that Pasal 31(4) of the Constitution reserves for education, and that the programme was not a core part of education. In their account, about 5.8 per cent of the state budget was claimed as education spending for the meals programme and the operations of the National Nutrition Agency (Badan Gizi Nasional), so that the spending properly devoted to education came to 14.2 per cent rather than 20 per cent. They linked this to reduced transfers to the regions and so to the employment security of honorer teachers and contract (PPPK) staff, invoking the right to fair and decent work in Pasal 28D(2), and described the shift as a regressive step in the progressive realisation of the right to education.^[6] The relief sought a conditional reading of Pasal 22(3) excluding the meals programme, and a declaration that the elucidation was unconstitutional.^[6:1]

The Court heard the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President, experts and witnesses called by the parties, two groups of related parties, one of them lecturers in constitutional and administrative law organised as the Constitutional and Administrative Law Society, and a large number of amicus curiae submissions from student bodies, research institutes and civil society organisations.^[7]

¶ Standing

The second petitioner was an association of teachers, lecturers and education staff. The Court found that its founding deed named a national board as the association's highest organ but did not state who could represent the association in and out of court, and that there was no other evidence that its national coordinator could represent it alone. The association was therefore held not to qualify as a petitioner. The first petitioner, a teacher at three public and private schools who also paid tax, was held to have shown a specific and at least potential loss of the rights in Pasal 28D(1) and (2), in connection with Pasal 31(2), causally linked to the provisions.^[1:4]

¶ Ruling

On Pasal 22(3), the Court held that the petition had the same essence as the challenge to that provision in decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced earlier on the same day. It quoted that decision's reasoning that the financing of the meals programme ought to be set separately from the education budget prioritised for education operations, that not every programme aimed at pupils, teachers or schools falls within education operations, and that the phrase "education operations" in Pasal 22(3) itself raises no constitutional issue because it can be read as the core components without which education cannot be delivered. That reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis, and the argument against Pasal 22(3) was held unfounded.^[2:2]

On the elucidation, the Court recalled that decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 had declared it conditionally binding: it applies only to the 2026 budget, and in later budgets the meals programme is to be separated from the education operations budget no later than the 2028 budget, or two years from that decision. Since the elucidation no longer had the content challenged, the petition on it had lost its object (kehilangan objek).^[4:1]

The operative order declared the second petitioner's petition inadmissible, declared the first petitioner's petition inadmissible so far as it concerned the elucidation of Pasal 22(3), 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.^[3:2]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 9 September 2026.^[8]

¶ See also

• Education law of Indonesia
• Constitutional Court Decision 241/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Constitutional Review of the 2026 State Budget Law: MK 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 9 September 2026)

¶ References