Plenary hearing for the pronouncement of Decree in Case No. 130/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2025 on the 2026 State Budget, Wednesday (4/29/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court granted the withdrawal of a petition filed by Ricki Insan Putra (Petitioner I), Irwan (Petitioner II), and Tri Wahyu Budi Santoso (Petitioner III) concerning the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2025 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 (the 2026 State Budget Law). The pronouncement hearing for Decree No. 130/PUU-XXIV/2026 was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other constitutional justices in the Court’s plenary courtroom on Wednesday, April 29, 2026.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Court had received a formal letter from the Petitioners requesting the withdrawal of their petition. The Court had also verified this matter during the hearing, and, in essence, the Petitioners confirmed their intention to withdraw the petition.

Furthermore, through the justice deliberation meetings (RPH) held on April 15, 16, 21, and 22, 2026, the Court determined that the withdrawal was legally justified. Consequently, the Petitioners are no longer permitted to refile the a quo petition. The RPH also instructed the Registrar to record the withdrawal in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK) and to return the relevant case documents to the Petitioners.

“(The Court) grants the Petitioners’ request to withdraw the petition,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo declared while reading out the decree.

Also read: Due to Similarities, Petitioners Consider Withdrawing Petition Against MBG Program

During the preliminary hearing on Friday, April 17, 2026, 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 Law No. 17 of 2025 on the 2026 State Budget were contrary to Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 22A, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, before hearing the Petitioners’ arguments, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra sought clarification, noting that the petition was identical to Case No. 127/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Syamsul Jahidin and other petitioners.

In their petition, the Petitioners, who are advocates and public policy observers with expertise in regulatory and policy analysis, argued that the MBG program primarily benefited foundations and SPPG entities. Petitioner III, who resides in Lombok, claimed to have encountered food distributed under the program that was close to its expiration date. He further observed that the closure of numerous SPPG units in his region reflected the program’s lack of readiness. According to the Petitioners, this condition contributed to fiscal disharmony within the State Budget and indicated inefficient use of public funds.

The Petitioners emphasized that the annual formulation of the State Budget should not merely be treated as a technocratic fiscal exercise. Instead, it must remain within constitutional boundaries that ensure transparency, accountability, limitations on executive power, and a primary orientation toward the people's greatest prosperity. They contended that the President’s fiscal authority, when exercised as a dominant instrument to steer state policy without adequate legislative mechanisms, risks leading to what they described as fiscal authoritarianism.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Andhini S.F.
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

The Complete Decision: Decision No. 130/PUU-XXIV/2026

 

---