The Petitioners of Case No. 130/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the 2026 State Budget Law considering to withdraw the petition before the constitutional justices, Friday (4/17/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Ricki Insan Putra, Irwan, and Tri Wahyu Budi Santoso (Petitioners I-III) have filed for the material review of Law No. 17 of 2025 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 (2026 APBN Law) to the Constitutional Court. The preliminary hearing for Case No. 130/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Friday, April 17, 2026 was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices Adies Kadir and Liliek P. Adi.

At this preliminary hearing, the Petitioners stated that Article 8 paragraph (5), Article 9 paragraph (4), Article 11 paragraph (2), Article 13 paragraph (4), Article 20 paragraph (1), and Article 29 paragraph (1) of the 2026 APBN Law are contradictory to Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 22A, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, before hearing the Petitioners detail their arguments, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi revealed that the petition a quo is almost identical to Petition No. 127/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Syamsul Jahidin and several others.

“Your petition is identical to Petition No. 127/PUU-XXIV/2026. We will discuss this earnestly. If it turns out that it is similar, the Court might take a stance on this. It is left to you now. As a panel, the three of us [justices] have reminded you and informed you, that while it is not 100 percent identical, it is 80 percent similar. So, if you have not observed that [other] petition, but admitted that you are partners of Syamsul Jahidin,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi explained.

In response, the Petitioners admitted that they are partners of Syamsul Jahidin and received his help in drafting the petition a quo. “We have not read said petition, and we are partners of Syamsul Jahidin. However, after checking earlier, we have only noticed similarities. That is why we are going to withdraw our petition,” said Petitioner I Ricki Insan Putra at the panel hearing that he attended virtually alongside Petitioner III Tri Wahyu Budi Santoso.

In their petition, the Petitioners, who are advocates and public policy observers who analyze regulations and public policies, believe the free nutritious meal (MBG) program only benefits the managing foundations and Nutrition Fulfilment Service Units (SPPG). Petitioner III, who live in Lombok, found that the program served food close to expiration. He argued that many SPPGs in his region were closed due to unpreparedness. This directly leads to disharmony in the state budget and constitutes budgetary inefficiency.

The Petitioners argued that the annual cycle of the formulation of the state budget is not merely a technocratic fiscal process, but must remain within constitutional limits that ensure transparency, accountability, the limitation of executive power, and a primary orientation toward the greatest prosperity of the people. from a constitutional perspective, the use of presidential fiscal authority as a dominant instrument to direct state policy, in the absence of legislative mechanisms, leads to fiscal authoritarianism.

Based on these arguments, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 8 paragraph (5) of Law No. 17 of 2025 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as: “The detailed allocation of Central Government Expenditure by Organization, Function, and Program as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be set out in Appendix I, which constitutes an integral part of this Law in accordance with the financial memorandum, and any amendments shall be regulated by Presidential Regulation, provided that such regulation does not contradict the provisions stipulated in sectoral laws and ensures the provision of meaningful public participation.” 

Explore Case No. 130/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author  : Sri Pujianti
Editor   : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR        : Andhini S. F.
Translator          : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---