<![CDATA[The Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme became the largest priority item in Indonesia's 2026 State Budget, with most of its funding placed under the education function. This article examines how the Constitutional Court answered the resulting constitutional dispute in Decisions No. 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 and No. 100/PUU-XXIV/2026, and why petitions No. 290 and 301/PUU-XXIV/2026 were declared inadmissible. Using a normative juridical method, the study finds that the Court reaffirmed the twenty percent education mandate but granted a transition period until the 2028 budget, and that its conditional reading of Article 8(5) of the 2026 Budget Law strengthens parliamentary budget rights while leaving gaps in reallocation across programmes within a single function. The article closes with recommendations for lawmakers and future petitioners.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
