Free Primary and Junior Secondary Education and the Implementation of Education Financing Following Constitutional Court Decision No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 on the Constitutional Review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System
A. Introduction
Constitutional Decision Impact Assessment (CiDIA) is a policy brief that presents a case study of constitutional review decisions issued by the Constitutional Court (MK). It examines the implications of Constitutional Court decisions on various aspects of constitutional governance while providing policy recommendations to navigate the issues arising from such decisions. CiDIA serves as a reference for policymaking and helps mitigate legal, democratic, and development-related challenges while maintaining sustainability, equality, and inclusiveness.
On 27 May 2025, the Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 concerning the constitutional review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (National Education System Law/UU Sisdiknas). The decision mandates that no fees shall be charged at the basic education level, both in public and private schools, as part of the implementation of compulsory education for citizens as stipulated under Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law.
Although the decision may be regarded as a positive development because it strengthens the constitutional guarantee for all citizens to access education, the statement of the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education (Mendikdasmen), Abdul Mu’ti, signals the need for further study, particularly regarding education financing through the State Budget (APBN) and the feasibility of implementing the Court’s mandate. This CiDIA therefore examines the impact of the decision on education policy and its implications for development financing.
B. Legal Considerations for Free Education
In Decision No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024, the Constitutional Court declared Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law (UU Sisdiknas) to be conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean: “The Central Government and Regional Governments shall guarantee the implementation of compulsory education at least at the basic education level without charging any fees, both for basic education institutions administered by the government and those administered by the community.” This decision is based on two fundamental issues: (1) the phrase “compulsory education at least at the basic education level without charging any fees”, which has given rise to multiple interpretations and discrimination; and (2) the allocation of the education budget, which has not been focused on financing children to pursue basic education.
The erroneous interpretation of the phrase “compulsory education at least at the basic education level without charging any fees” has resulted in disparities in the implementation of the state’s constitutional obligation. Instead of assisting citizens in fulfilling this obligation, the government has yet to provide adequate financial support to enable citizens to meet it. As a result, this obligation has become non-reciprocal and places greater emphasis on one-sided compliance.
Meanwhile, state intervention still leaves considerable work to be done in ensuring equitable access. The Gross Enrollment Rate (GER) at the Junior Secondary School (SMP) or Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs) level stands at 92.7% for children from affluent families and 90.8% for children from low-income families. Although these percentages are relatively high, participation has not yet been fully inclusive, and therefore equitable access has not yet been achieved.
This is closely intertwined with the second issue. Efforts to maximize the utilization of the education budget, which is constitutionally allocated at a minimum of 20% of the State Budget (APBN) and Regional Budgets (APBD), still require further optimization. Data presented by the Petitioners in the Principal Petition demonstrate that education spending has not been appropriately directed toward improving educational accessibility in a fair, high-quality, and inclusive manner, as only 6.1% of the education budget is allocated to financing compulsory education.
This situation is believed to stem from the continued misinterpretation of the provision. The phrase “compulsory education at least at the basic education level without charging any fees” has been interpreted narrowly, limiting its application solely to public schools. In reality, however, the capacity of public schools is insufficient to accommodate all Indonesian children, making private schools essential in expanding access to education.
Private schools represent a form of public participation alongside the state in fulfilling the right to education and the state’s constitutional obligation to provide basic education. However, children’s access—particularly for those from economically disadvantaged families—is constrained by high educational costs and the absence of financial assistance to support their enrollment. This decision is therefore expected to serve as constitutional guidance, providing direction for financing basic education without discrimination.
C. Implementation of Basic Education Financing Following the Constitutional Court Decision
The implementation of free basic education should, of course, be carried out with careful consideration. This issue may be addressed by taking into account two aspects: increasing the education budget allocation beyond the minimum threshold of 20%, and providing more specific guidance on education sector budget allocation.
Although 20% of the State Budget (APBN) and Regional Budgets (APBD) constitutes the minimum constitutional allocation, the state may allocate a higher percentage. Increasing the education budget will largely depend on how political leadership determines the allocation of the APBN based on national development priorities, which will ultimately shape budgetary policy.
Under the current administration, as reflected in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2025–2029, National Priority No. 4 calls for strengthening national development, including in the education sector. Educational development is closely linked to human resource development, as reflected in the human development targets set out in the National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) 2025–2045. It is also included as one of the Priority Development Strategies under the RPJMN 2025–2029, focusing on community empowerment, as well as the Education Development Policy Direction to support the short- and medium-term Fiscal Policy Strategy for the 2025 State Budget (APBN).
If the education budget is increased to achieve these objectives and strategies, other sectors will necessarily need to undergo efficiency measures in order to accommodate the established priorities and strategies while fulfilling the constitutional right to education. First, the rationale for increasing the education budget may begin by aligning the fulfillment of the right to education with National Priority No. 1, namely the strengthening of Human Rights (HAM).
Second, budget reallocations may be made from sectors whose implementation has not yet proven effective. Funding may be redirected from the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program and the National Nutrition Agency (BGN) to the education sector in order to improve the accessibility of educational institutions and expand their enrollment capacity. Third, the proportion of government and ministerial/institutional expenditure allocated to the education sector may also be increased.
Another alternative is to provide more specific instructions regarding the allocation of the existing education budget, whether from the APBN or the APBD. Appropriate guidelines for the allocation and utilization of education funding should be established to ensure several objectives: (1) expanding the enrollment capacity of both public and private basic education institutions; and (2) providing dedicated financial assistance for lower-middle-income and disadvantaged families, whether through existing subsidy schemes (School Operational Assistance/BOS funds) or through other forms and mechanisms of educational subsidies.
The Constitutional Court also emphasized the importance of providing financial support to private schools. This reflects society’s active participation in assisting the state in fulfilling the right to education, carrying out the state’s constitutional obligation to provide basic education, and advancing the nation toward the vision of national development. Accordingly, the state may provide assistance to private schools to expand their enrollment capacity, particularly for students from families in need of financial support, with reference to relevant legislation, such as Government Regulation No. 28 of 1981 concerning Assistance to Private Schools and other related regulations.
D. Recommendations
- The House of Representatives (DPR RI) should treat Constitutional Court Decision No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 as constitutional guidance when amending the National Education System Law, so as to establish a national framework for free or affordable basic education while providing clearer budgeting guidance through its budgeting function to fulfill the state’s constitutional obligation to provide education.
- President Prabowo Subianto should reorganize and restructure fiscal policy priorities beginning with the 2026 fiscal year by prioritizing expanded participation in basic education, establishing sustainable education financing mechanisms, and ensuring that education expenditure focuses on expanding accessibility and inclusive educational accommodation, particularly through transfers to regional governments (TKD).
- President Prabowo and the Central Government should revise the implementing regulations of the National Education System Law to facilitate free or affordable basic education in accordance with Constitutional Court Decision No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024, while introducing more specific budgeting and expenditure guidelines for local governments to expand educational capacity, improve children’s access to schools, and ensure educational continuity.
- The Central Government and Regional Governments should jointly formulate new implementing regulations establishing improved financing mechanisms for basic education, particularly for community-managed educational institutions (private schools), while adopting affirmative policies to expand school capacity and increase children’s participation in basic education, thereby ensuring the full realization of the state’s constitutional obligations.
- Regional Governments should determine education financing based on their respective economic and fiscal capacities while ensuring that education budgets prioritize expanding children’s access to basic education, particularly by providing financial assistance to students attending private schools in order to fulfill citizens’ constitutional right to education.
Media Contact:
Azeem Marhendra Amedi (Researcher for Law and Constitutional Affairs SETARA Institute)
For the complete CiDIA document, please refer to: