Petitioners and legal counsel attending the petition revision hearing of Case No. 75/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2019 on Pesantren on Thursday (12/3). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) again held a hearing to examine the judicial review of Article 48 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 18 of 2019 on Pesantren (Islamic Boarding School/Pesantren Law) on Thursday, March 12, 2026. The petition was filed by Muh Adam Arrofiu Arfah (Petitioner I) and Isfa’zia Ulhaq (Petitioner II). The hearing, which examined revisions to Petition No. 75/PUU-XXIV/2026, was chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, sitting with Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Adies Kadir.

In court, Muh Adam Arrofiu Arfah stated that the petition had been revised in line with the Panel’s earlier advice, particularly regarding the Petitioners’ legal standing.

“What we have revised in accordance with the Justices’ advice concerns legal standing, especially the causal relationship between the operation of the challenged norms and the Petitioners’ constitutional losses. The revisions appear on page 11 on constitutional loss through to page 15 on legal standing,” he said.

He added that the reasons for the petition had also been expanded. The petition, which previously ran to around 38 pages, now totals 59 pages after being reorganized into nine sections.

“Following the Justices’ advice, we elaborated the constitutional issues raised by the norms and the normative inconsistencies that were previously only briefly outlined. In the updated reasoning, we also added a framework on the formal and non‑formal education system for pesantren,” he explained.

Also read:

Petition on Pesantren Law Highlights 20 Percent Education Budget Mandate

Article 48 paragraph (2) of the Pesantren Law provides that “the Central Government shall assist in funding the administration of pesantren through the state budget in accordance with the State’s financial capacity and statutory regulations.” Article 48 paragraph (3) states that “Regional Governments shall assist in funding the administration of pesantren through regional budgets in accordance with their authority and statutory regulations.”

During the preliminary hearing on Friday, February 27, 2026, Muh Adam Arrofiu Arfah argued that the constitutionally mandated minimum of 20 percent of the state budget for education is, in practice, split into operational spending and an accumulating education endowment reserved for long-term development such as scholarships, capacity building, and research.

He stressed that the endowment is not meant to finance day-to-day pesantren operations, including teachers’ salaries, students’ basic needs, or routine learning activities, so an endowment for pesantren cannot be treated as full compliance with the state’s constitutional duty to fund education.

Adam further argued that rising education budgets over the years show that the phrases “in accordance with the state’s financial capacity” and “in accordance with their authority” are not objective constraints, pointing out that the state clearly has substantial fiscal room, including for large priority programs such as the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) scheme, which will reach trillions of rupiah in 2026.

“When the state can pour enormous funds into certain programs yet still does not provide definite operational guarantees for pesantren, there is a strong indication that the phrases in the article in question are no longer rational or proportionate in today’s fiscal context,” Adam told the Court.

The Petitioners therefore question the constitutionality of the phrases tying pesantren funding to “the state’s financial capacity” and to governmental “authority,” arguing that they risk undermining the certainty of education funding guarantees mandated by Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Case tracking: Petition No. 75/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Utami Argawati

Editor: N. Rosi.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---