Konstitusionalitas Kebijakan Pemerintah Dalam Pengalokasian Apbn Untuk Program Prioritas Nasional: Perspektif Hak Atas Pendidikan Dan Kesejahteraan Sosial

Abstract

The allocation of the state budget by the government for national priority programs, especially the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) program, raises constitutional problems when the program is financed from the education budget, which according to Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution must be at least 20 percent. This article examines the constitutional obligation of the state in allocating a budget for the fulfillment of the right to education and social welfare based on Article 31 and Article 34, assesses the constitutionality of the allocation of these priority programs from the perspective of the two rights, and analyzes the legal implications of financing such programs through the education budget. With normative juridical research through legislative, case, and conceptual approaches, this article analyzes the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the State Budget Law, the National Education System Law, as well as the Constitutional Court Decisions Number 026/PUU-III/2005, Number 24/PUU-V/2007, and Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026. The results of the study show that the discretion of the government and the House of Representatives in determining priorities is recognized, but limited by mandatory spending. Constitutionality must be assessed not only formally, namely the achievement of the 20 percent figure, but also substantively, namely by directing funds to the main components of education. MBG has a strong foundation in Article 34 so that it is more appropriately financed from the social welfare or health budget. The Court's order to separate MBG funding is a legitimate implementation of the negative function of legislators. This article concludes that there is a need for stricter definitions of education budgets in the law, better transparency, as well as fiscal sustainability that respects intergenerational justice.