Distorsi Konstitusional Anggaran Pendidikan: Asas Spesialitas Anggaran atas Pembebanan Program Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) dalam Mandat Constitutional Spending

Taufiq Ali Romdloni

doi:10.55681/seikat.v5i4.3211

Authors

Taufiq Ali Romdloni UIN Walisongo Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/seikat.v5i4.3211

Keywords:

APBN, Constitutional Distortion, Education Budget, Makan Bergizi Gratis, Mandatory Spending

Abstract

Law Number 17 of 2025 on the 2026 State Budget maintains the twenty percent minimum threshold for education spending, yet channels most of that allocation to finance the Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) program, raising a constitutional problem that touches the imperative character of Article 31(4) of the 1945 Constitution. This study assesses the constitutionality of charging MBG financing to the education budget while clarifying the limits of the legislature's authority to interpret the scope of education mandatory spending. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, historical, and case approaches, it draws on the doctrine of constitutional mandatory spending and the theory of the Constitutional Court as a negative budgeter. The findings show that nominal fulfillment of the twenty percent threshold does not legitimize a cross-sectoral diversion of purpose; charging MBG to the education budget is unconstitutional in its allocation because nutritional benefits are not constitutive of education as confined by the Court to education directly enjoyed by the public. The legislature lacks authority to redefine a constitutional mandate through an appropriations law of an administrative (beschikking) character, whereas the Court may correct the allocation as a negative budgeter through a conditionally constitutional ruling. The novelty lies in reading the diversion as constitutional distortion and offering a purpose-fidelity test, an operationalization of the budget specialty principle (specialiteitsbeginsel) in the constitutional domain as a parameter for assessing expenditures counted as education budget.

Keywords: APBN; Constitutional Distortion; Education Budget; Makan Bergizi Gratis; Mandatory Spending.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anggreni, N. (2023). Akibat Hukum atas Alokasi Anggaran Pendidikan yang Kurang dari 20% Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah. Jurnal Mengkaji Indonesia, 2(1), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.59066/jmi.v2i1.425

Asshiddiqie, J. (2010). Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Sinar Grafika.

Bickel, A. M. (1962). The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Bobbs-Merrill.

Council, U. E. and S. (1999). General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11 of the Covenant). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1999(12), 1–5. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838c11.pdf

Cury, C. R. J. (2018). Financing of education in Brazil: From the literary subsidy to FUNDEB. Educacao and Realidade, 43(4), 1217–1251. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623684862

Efendi, M. A. F., Muhtadi, & Saleh, A. (2023). Putusan Positive Legislature oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 20(4), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2044

Fadillah Walduda’ini, A., Fautanu, I., & Fahrul Rizal, L. (2024). Kritik Hukum Terhadap Peran Positive Legislature Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora Dan Politik, 4(5), 1569–1576. https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v4i5.2312

Faisyah, N., Safa’at, M. A., & Susmayanti, R. (2025). Constitutional Parameters of Judicial Activism in the Indonesian Constitutional Court. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 6(1), 724–738. https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v6i1.1073

Fikri, A., & Sulfany, A. (2024). Anggaran Pendidikan Era Otonomi Daerah Dalam Perspektif Constitutional Mandatory Spending: Studi Kebijakan Kartu Jakarta Pintar. Justicia Sains: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 9(1), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.24967/jcs.v9i1.3228

Indrayana, D. (2008). Indonesian Constitutional Reform 1999–2002: An Evaluation of Constitution-Making in Transition. Penerbit Buku Kompas.

James M. Buchanan. (1963). The Economics of Earmarked Taxes. Journal of Political Economy, 71(5). https://doi.org/10.1086/258794

Kovenan Internasional Tentang Hak-Hak Ekonomi, Sosial, Dan Budaya, Pasal 11, Diratifikasi Melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2005.

Landau, D. (2013). Abusive Constitutionalism. University of California, Davis Law Review, 189(47), 189–260.

Mahanani, A. E. E. (2020). Impresi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Bersifat Positive Legislature Ditinjau dari Progresivitas Hukum dan Teori Pemisahan Kekuasaan. Asy-Syir’ah: Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah Dan Hukum, 54(2), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.14421/ajish.v54i2.920

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2023). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Mahkamah Konstitusi RI.

Martitah. (2013). Mahkamah Konstitusi: Dari Negative Legislature ke Positive Legislature? Konstitusi Press.

Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum edisi revisi. Kencana.

Mochtar, Z. A. (2021). Kekuasaan Kehakiman Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Diskursus Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint. Rajawali Pers.

Muttaqin, L., Enggarani, N. S., Nurhayati, N., Junaidi, M., & Febriyanti, N. (2023). Constitutional Court vs. Lawmakers: Positive Legislature, Decision Implementation, and Balance of Authority. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 5(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.554

Oliveira, V. A. de, Vieira, E. T., Santos, T. M. dos, & Niyama, J. K. (2022). Constitutional Amendment 95/2016 and its Impact On A Federal University. REVISTA AMBIENTE CONTÁBIL, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.21680/2176-9036.2022v14n1id27712

Omara, A. (2016). the Constitutionalization of Budget for Education and Its Judicial Enforcement in Indonesia. Constitutional Review, 2(2), 189–215. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev222

Permohonan Uji Materiil Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2025 Tentang APBN 2026 Terdaftar Di Mahkamah Konstitusi Dengan Nomor 40/PUU-XXIV/2026.

Putri, I. P., Yustikaningrum, R. Y., & Devitasari, A. A. (2021). Implementasi Tax on Food dalam Tanggung Jawab Negara Terhadap Hak Pangan Berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi 39/PUU-XIV/2016. Jurnal Konstitusi, 18(2), 294. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1822

Putusan Nomor 011/PUU-III/2005 (2005).

Putusan Nomor 013/PUU-VI/2008.

Putusan Nomor 026/PUU-III/2005.

Putusan Nomor 24/PUU-V/2007 (2008).

Ramdani, M. A. K., Harijanto, S. D., & Sungkar, L. (2025). Orientasi Rigit dan Moderat dalam Penafsiran Original Intent dan Praktiknya di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 55(1). https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol55.no.1.1738

Saifulloh, P. P. A. (2021). Gagasan Konstitusi Pangan: Urgensi Pengaturan Hak Atas Pangan Warga Negara dalam Amandemen Kelima UUD 1945. Jurnal HAM, 12(2), 227. https://doi.org/10.30641/ham.2021.12.227-244

Salman, R., Sukardi, S., & Aris, M. S. (2018). Judicial Activism or Self-Restraint : Some Insight Into the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Yuridika, 33(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v33i1.7279

Saragih, G. M., Nasution, M., & Sihombing, E. N. (2025). Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman. Jurnal Konstitusi, 22(1), 039–065. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2213

Susanto, M. (2018). Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Negative Budgeter dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara. Jurnal Konstitusi, 14(4), 728. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1442

Wibowo, M. (2016). Menakar Konstitusionalitas sebuah Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(2), 196. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1221

World Bank. (2020). Reforming Education Financing in Brazil. World Bank.

Yuniati, A., Nabila, A. R., Kayla, O. N., Manihuruk, D. J., & Hutabarat, F. C. S. (2026). ALOKASI ANGGARAN PENDIDIKAN 20 % DALAM APBN : ANALISIS YURIDIS IMPLEMENTASI AMANAT KONSTITUSI. Journal of Law and Social Change Review, 1(01), 1–15.