Indonesian teacher organizations have raised concerns that a proposed revision to the National Education System (Sisdiknas) Law could allow the government to bypass a recent Constitutional Court ruling and resume funding the national free nutritious meal program using the mandatory education budget. The debate centers on draft language that could categorize health services as a core component of education, a move critics argue would circumvent legal restrictions on how the state’s 20 percent mandatory education budget is spent.
Constitutional Court Ruling on Education Spending
On July 30, the Constitutional Court ruled that President Prabowo Subianto’s free meals program does not qualify as an educational expense and must be removed from the education budget by 2028, according to Reuters. The court, led by Chief Judge Suhartoyo, recommended the government begin separating these expenditures as early as the 2027 state budget. The ruling followed petitions from educators, students, and nonprofit organizations who argued that the inclusion of the meal program in the education budget caused financial imbalances, with historical teacher Iman Zanatul Haeri testifying that the program’s costs coincided with local salary cuts and contract terminations.
In 2026, the government allocated Rp 223 trillion of the total Rp 769 trillion education budget to the free meals program, accounting for nearly one-third of the mandatory spending, as reported by The Jakarta Post. Constitutional law expert Feri Amsari noted that the court’s decision establishes a legal principle applicable to all legislation, meaning any future attempts to reclassify the program under a different law to access education funds would be invalid.
Concerns Over the Sisdiknas Bill Revision
The Indonesian Teachers Association (P2G) has flagged a provision in the House of Representatives’ draft bill, dated July 8, which mandates that the government and society provide health services at educational institutions in a manner “integrated with the national health policies as well as the national education goals.” P2G national coordinator Satriwan Salim stated that this phrasing is vague and could be interpreted to classify the national free meals program as a core component of education, effectively bringing it back under the umbrella of mandatory education funding.
Agus Sarwono of Transparency International Indonesia, representing the MBG Watch coalition, warned that any effort to use budget nomenclature or regulatory adjustments to maintain the current funding structure would amount to a denial of the court’s binding ruling. The coalition pointed to previous instances of delays in implementing court decisions, such as a December 2025 ruling regarding the employment of active-duty police officers in government posts.
House of Representatives Response
Golkar Party lawmaker Hetifah Sjaifudian, who chairs House Commission X, stated that the bill is not yet ready for publication and that the commission is aware of the public’s concerns. She emphasized that the commission is committed to ensuring the education budget is utilized to meet primary needs, specifically citing the improvement of learning quality, teacher welfare, and education services. According to Hetifah, the bill remains subject to change throughout the deliberation process, and the commission welcomes further public input to ensure the final text does not conflict with the Constitution.
Did You Know? The Indonesian Constitution mandates that at least 20 percent of the annual state budget must be allocated to the education sector, a requirement that has become the focus of the legal dispute over how to categorize the government’s multibillion-dollar nutrition initiative.
Expert Insight: The tension between the legislature and the judiciary highlights the difficulty of defining the boundaries of “education” in national policy. While the court has clearly separated nutrition from pedagogy to protect teacher and student resources, the legislative attempt to integrate health and education suggests a continued struggle to reconcile the government’s fiscal priorities with the constitutional protections afforded to the education sector.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Constitutional Court rule against the current funding model?
The court determined that the free meals program is not an educational expense and that including it in the education budget creates imbalances in the proportionality of state spending, according to Reuters.
What is the primary concern of teacher groups regarding the new bill?
The P2G and other organizations fear that vague language regarding health services at schools could be used to classify the free meals program as an educational activity, allowing it to continue drawing from the mandatory 20 percent education budget despite the court’s order, as reported by The Jakarta Post.
What is the status of the Sisdiknas bill?
The bill is currently under deliberation by House Commission X, which has stated that the text is not yet finalized and remains open to public input and revisions to ensure it aligns with constitutional principles.
How do you believe the government should balance national health initiatives with the constitutional mandate to protect the education budget?