. The termnoodverordeningsrechtitself is defined in English as clear and present danger, which is a clear and compelling dangerous situation. From this understanding, it seems to lead to the idea that Article 22 is a residue of the regulations in the 1949 RIS Constitution and the 1950 Provisional Constitution which has a strong nuance of emergency alarms and haste. However, after a series of amendments to the 1945 Constitution (1999-2002) were carried out, fundamental changes occurred, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (post-amendment) no longer contains explanatory provisions, thus creating a 'void' regarding the meaning of compelling urgency.Third, the emergence of the void then encouraged the Constitutional Court (MK) to provide a constitutional interpretation through Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 which was based on a request for testing Perpu No. 4 of 2009 concerning Amendments to Law No. 30 of 2002 concerning the KPK. In the Decision, the Constitutional Court provides an interpretation of the intent of compelling urgency as the basis for the President to stipulate Perpu, namely: 1) The existence of an urgent need to resolve legal problems quickly based on the Law; 2) The required Law does not yet exist so there is a legal vacuum, or there is a Law, but it is inadequate; 3) the legal vacuum cannot be overcome through the formation of a Law in the usual procedure because it requires a considerable amount of time while the compelling urgency requires certainty to be resolved.

Straightening Out the Meaning of Compelling Urgency Regarding Perpu

The previous description has illustrated that the interpretation of the intent of emergency (compelling urgency) as the basis for the enactment of Perpu by the President seems to never be truly singular, the historical journey of Perpu regulation through the 1949 RIS Constitution and 1950 Provisional Constitution regimes, plays a large enough role to create a broad meaning of emergency for compelling urgency. From this point, it is not surprising that some legal experts often associate compelling urgency withstate of emergencyin a broad sense—including civil emergency, military emergency, to natural disasters. This understanding makes the difference between Article 12 and Article 22 appear blurred to this day. Therefore, this paper firmly intends to straighten out the paradigm of compelling urgency as the basis for stipulating Perpu based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 as the final basis. The decision is like a spotlight that breaks through the ambiguity, because the Constitutional Court through its constitutional interpretation explains that the matter of compelling urgency to stipulate Perpu by the President is only in the arena of 'Legal Emergency' with 3 (three) indicators:First, ‘an urgent need to resolve legal problems quickly’Second, ‘legal vacuum’, ‘inadequate law’, andThird‘There is not enough time available to form laws through ordinary procedures.’ Reflecting on the considerationConstitutional Court Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009above, the Constitutional Court judge did not equate compelling urgency with a state of emergency. From the a quo decision, the author can interpret that Perpu is established as a legal product in a normal state, not a legal product from an abnormal situation that requires repressive executive action as instate of emergency. Thus, Perpu was born in the constitutional space because the ordinary legislative process was unable to answer legal needs in a timely manner, this means that the measure is the acceleration of formation due to the urgency/urgency of time which is fully assessed through the President's subjectivity to issue a Perpu product or not. Furthermore, the above argumentation can be reinforced by Jimly Asshiddiqie's thinking which also developed thoughts on emergency constitutional law in the Perpu dimension—by stating that “compelling urgency” is not an emergency in the sense of a state or military emergency, but rather a legal urgency. So the focus is on the legal emergency (Law) that arises due to the emptiness of the law and the inadequacy of the law, therefore it requires acceleration to form and enforce the law in order to create certainty. A popular opinion in the same context was also put forward by John Ferejohn and Pasquale Pasquino, in his writingThe Law of the Exception: A Typology of Emergency Powers (2004), which distinguishes between 2 (two) types of emergency powers, namely: “administrative emergency powers” and “constitutional dictatorship”. In this framework, Perpu is in the first category, namely emergency administrative authority which is still subject to the legal system and legislative oversight. Meanwhile, a state of emergency has the potential to lead to the second form, namely constitutional dictatorship—a state in which the rule of law is suspended in order to save the country. According to Ferejohn,administrative emergency powersmust remain under the control of legal norms that can be tested and supervised. Perpu in this context is subject to political testing (DPR approval), namely it is valid temporarily until the DPR session to submit a Bill and then becomes a permanent Law (if approved by the DPR). In the end, Emergency Constitutional Law records the meaning of 'emergency' as something specific to legal issues in the context of constitutional law. The background to the birth of emergency constitutional law is widely understood as a result of a situation or condition in a country that is considered unusual/normal. However, the specificity of emergency constitutional law thinking has in fact developed not only in the context of a state of emergency, but also a compelling urgency. Constitutional Court Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 has made historical corrections, thus providing affirmation that Perpu is a response to a compelling urgency as an expression of a legal emergency in a normal state, therefore only time is a challenge. Thus, the decision was taken without the DPR because the legislative system was unable to answer the urgent legal call. Next, in the future the President needs to carefully pay attention to and consider the priority of the requirements for stipulating Perpu as in Constitutional Court Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009, this is important so that Perpu remains a legal product that is determined according to its essence, namely based on the urgency of the rules (law), not the urgency of the situation (emergency).