The beginning of 2026 has become a severe stress test for the flagship program of President Prabowo Subianto’s administration: the Free Nutritious Meal (Makan Bergizi Gratis / MBG). A mass food poisoning incident at SMAN 2 Kudus, which left at least 118 students suffering serious health complications after consuming MBG meal packs, has triggered widespread public alarm.
Ironically, the incident occurred shortly after the President’s speech at an international forum, where he confidently proclaimed that MBG would evolve into a gargantuan food operation—surpassing even global fast-food giants such as McDonald’s. The comparison invites a fundamental question: if corporations like McDonald’s operate under quality-control systems so stringent that mass poisoning clusters are virtually unheard of, how could a state-run program collapse at the most elementary level of all—food safety?
More pointedly, when citizens fall ill because of a government program, who can and should be held legally accountable?
Liability Is Not Monolithic
In both criminal law and administrative law, liability does not rest on a single scapegoat. Responsibility must be dissected according to each actor’s role, authority, and degree of control within the chain of events.
1. Head of the Nutrition Fulfillment Service Unit (SPPG): Technical Negligence
As the primary field supervisor, the Head of the SPPG controls kitchen operations, storage, and distribution. This position places the official closest to the locus delicti (scene of the offense).
Liability may arise under negligence provisions:
Article 360(1) of the Old Criminal Code (KUHP):
“Whoever, by his fault (negligence), causes another person to suffer serious injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or detention of up to one year.”
Article 474(1) of Law No. 1 of 2023 (New Criminal Code):
“Any person who, due to negligence, causes another person to suffer serious injury shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of Category IV.”
Negligence may include failure to inspect raw materials, allowing kitchens to operate without sanitation standards, or failing to maintain the cold chain for perishable proteins. A public apology, however sincere, does not extinguish criminal liability.
2. Vendors and Cooks: Violation of Food Safety Standards
Food processors operate under a stricter legal regime.
Article 140 of Law No. 18 of 2012 on Food:
“Any person who intentionally produces and trades food that does not meet Food Safety and Food Quality standards, resulting in others becoming ill, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to IDR 4,000,000,000.”
Additionally:
Article 204(1) of the Criminal Code:
“Whoever sells, offers, delivers, or distributes goods known to endanger life or health, without informing of their dangerous nature, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to fifteen years.”
Modern food law increasingly embraces the principle of strict liability. The prosecutor need only establish that the product originated from the vendor and caused harm—not that the vendor intended to poison consumers.
3. National Nutrition Agency (BGN): Systemic Failure
If investigations reveal that vendors were selected without adequate due diligence or that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were structurally deficient, the problem transcends individual fault and becomes systemic.
Civil liability may arise under:
Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code:
“Every unlawful act that causes damage to another person obliges the person whose fault caused the damage to compensate such loss.”
In administrative law doctrine, this constitutes an Unlawful Act by a Public Authority (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad).
President Prabowo: Between Immunity and Official Responsibility
Indonesia does not broadly apply the doctrine of vicarious liability in public criminal law. The President enjoys functional immunity while exercising constitutional duties.
Consequently, personal criminal prosecution of the President is highly unlikely—unless extraordinary evidence shows that he consciously ordered the disregard of food-safety standards.
Yet the absence of personal criminal liability does not eliminate responsibility. Systemic failure engages official responsibility and political accountability. A strategic national program that repeatedly harms citizens signals defects in policy design, oversight architecture, and central control.
MBG vs. McDonald’s: Divergent Risk-Management Philosophies
Global corporations such as McDonald’s survive by enforcing multilayered audits, uniform standards, and rapid sanctions against non-compliant suppliers. Their survival depends on consumer trust and immediate market punishment.
State programs, by contrast, are often hampered by bureaucratic bias—the tendency to protect institutions and suppress damaging disclosures. If the government genuinely aspires to exceed corporate standards, MBG oversight must evolve from document-driven compliance into a genuine safety culture.
Conclusion: Tragedy Behind Ambition
Criminal liability will most likely stop at vendors and the Head of the SPPG. Civilly, however, the state remains vulnerable to class action lawsuits seeking compensation for medical expenses and non-material suffering.
The Kudus incident is an early warning. Grand ambition without technical rigor does not produce welfare—it produces casualties. A free meal program should symbolize state protection of the young, not a new source of mass health risk. Without immediate structural reform, claims of being “bigger than McDonald’s” will stand not as triumphs, but as painful footnotes in Indonesia’s policy history.