Dynamics of Meaning of Perpu Emergency

In the constitutional cycle, it must be admitted that until now the meaning of the phrase compelling urgency has not become a single understanding. This terminology remains a hot and sharp field of dialectics among constitutional law thinkers—especially when interpreting it as the background for the enactment of Perpu. In the academic realm and constitutional practice, this discourse continues to give rise to dichotomy. On the one hand, there is a view that places compelling urgency as identical to the concept of a state of emergency—namely an abnormal situation that threatens the stability of the state and requires an extraordinary response. However, on the other hand, some experts firmly separate the 2 (two) concepts by emphasizing that compelling urgency is a normal situation, so it is not identical to a state of danger as an emergency legal instrument based on Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Of course, a crucial question inevitably arises: why was the dichotomy born and continues to throb in constitutional law discourse? The author views that the root of this interpretation split at least originates from the constitutional foundation itself:First, the 1945 Constitution was truly tested, apart from being drafted in a very limited and hasty time because it had to immediately realize Indonesia's independence and after independence status was obtained, the 1945 Constitution still needed to go through various phases before transforming into a permanent constitution, this was marked when the 1945 Constitution changed its guise into the 1949 RIS Constitution and the 1950 Provisional Constitution. In both constitutions, the regulation of Perpu transformed into 'Emergency Law (UU)', this means that Perpu is associated as Emergency Law with the aim of anticipating abnormal or emergency/dangerous state conditions, and requires regulations at the level of Law. However, these two constitutions did not last long because through Presidential Decree 5 July 1959, Soekarno re-enacted the 1945 Constitution which implied a change in status to the 1945 Constitution to become a permanent constitution and automatically reactivated the provisions regarding Perpu and delegitimized the Emergency Law nomenclature that had been recorded in the 1949 RIS Constitution and the 1950 Provisional Constitution.Second, editorially, Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution in the pre-amendment text once contained an explanation, namely:“This article concerns the President's noodverordeningsrecht. This rule is indeed necessary so that the safety of the state can be guaranteed by the government in urgent circumstances, which force the government to act quickly and appropriately”