Implications Of Dualism In Testing Government Regulations In Lieu Of Laws (Perppu) Against Legal Certainty

Abstract

In the event of a compelling emergency, the President has the right to enact a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu).The government regulation must be approved by the House of Representatives (DPR) in the following session. If it does not get approval, then the government regulation must be revoked. (Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution). With this provision, the authority to review (Perppu) attributively lies with the House of Representatives. However, in the development and dynamics of constitutional law, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 was born, which has now become a jurisprudence that the Constitutional Court also has the right to test Perppu against the 1945 Constitution. Testing perppu in the DPR RI by political review is different from testing perppu in the Constitutional Court which is carried out by judicial review. This paper focuses on the dualism of testing perppu with its implications. In practice, it can happen that the House of Representatives and the Constitutional Court give conflicting decisions because of the different testing models. The research method used is normative juridical, which examines a set of legal materials related to the perppu testing. The analysis used is the need for certainty of time for the DPR to conduct a hearing for approval of perppu in Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 19 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. The validity period of the Perppu is considered quite long and uncertain so that there are people who submit Perppu testing through the Constitutional Court. It is often found that when a judicial review is conducted through the Constitutional Court, it turns out that politically the Perppu is also being proposed by the DPR. And when the Perppu has been approved by the DPR into law, the Constitutional Court will decide on the Perppu review with a verdict stating that the petition cannot be accepted on the grounds that the petition has lost its object. The dualism of Perppu testing in practice creates a waste or legal uncertainty.