Syamsul Jahidin, one of the Petitioners of Case No. 127/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the 2026 State Budget Law, withdrawing the petition before the constitutional justices, Tuesday (4/28/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the second material review hearing of Law No. 17 of 2025 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 (2026 APBN Law) on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. The session was to hear the revisions to the petition filed by Marina Ria Aritonang, ST Luthfiani, Syamsul Jahidin, and Edy Rudyanto (Petitioners I-IV). However, Syamsul Jahidin expressed the Petitioners’ wish to withdraw the petition.

“We would like to withdraw the petition because Petitioner II experienced a misfortune, while Petitioner I experienced a conflict in her region. Thus, we agreed to withdraw this petition, which we will then elaborate. The letter with handwritten signature will be sent by postal service, to show our professionalism,” he said, explaining the reason for the withdrawal.

In response to this confirmation, alongside Constitutional Justices Adies Kadir and Liliek P. Adi, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra declared the hearing adjourned.

Also read: Homemakers-Advocates Challenge Free Meal Program in State Budget Law

At the preliminary hearing for Case No. 127/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Wednesday, April 15, the Petitioners argued 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 against Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 22A, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Petitioner I and Petitioner III are homemakers as well as advocates with expertise in legislative risk analysis, oversight of government procurement of goods and services, and strengthening public participation in monitoring public policy. In their role as mothers with school-age children, they have directly observed the implementation of the free nutritious meals (MBG) program for their children. They argue that provisions on the MBG in the norm a quo in the 2026 State Budget Law is inconsistent with the Lawmaking Law, particularly due to the lack of transparency in its legislative process. To them, the enactment of the norm a quo indirectly legitimizes policies that waste state finances without adequate planning.

Based on her research on the MBG program, Petitioner III found that it only benefits foundations and SPPG (Nutrition Fulfilment Service Unit). In practice, the food provided is often not in accordance with standards, and much of it is close to expiration. In addition, the Petitioners observed food poisoning and inefficient budget allocation.

Explore Case No. 127/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.

---