Legal Literacy- In the intellectual landscape of higher legal education, the author realizes that the study of emergency constitutional law is still a less popular discourse to be discussed in depth in higher legal education. Likewise, in the research arena, studies on emergency constitutional law still tend not to receive much special attention from contemporary scholars (legal experts). The focus of attention tends to be fixated on understanding the configuration of constitutional law in normal order (conditions). However, it is undeniable that the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has adopted 2 (two) types of constitutional law, namely: first, the use of state power in normal circumstances; and second, the use of state power in abnormal (emergency) circumstances. In the developing global literature, this is referred to as constitutional dualism, as pioneered by the American Law Professor Bruce Ackerman. Furthermore, referring to emergency-nuanced regulations, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia regulates it in Article 12 which reads: “The President declares a state of danger. The terms and consequences of a state of danger are stipulated by law”. Furthermore, in Article 22 paragraph (1) it reads: “In the event of compelling urgency, the President has the right to stipulate government regulations in lieu of laws”. The existence of these 2 (two) constitutional norms forms an interesting node of thought to study the meaning of the emergency. So it is only natural that a question arises that disturbs legal reasoning, namely: are the two provisions (Article 12 and Article 22) identical? Furthermore, is the character of compelling urgency as the background for the enactment of Perpu comparable (equivalent) to emergency power regulations (state of danger)? These two questions will be the focus of this paper.