Assessing the Validity of the Term 'Compelling Crisis Situation' as a Constitutional Basis for Presidential Authority to Issue Government Regulations in Lieu of Law

The President's authority in issuing several government regulations in lieu of laws (Perppu) is considered unobjective. It opens up opportunities for unhealthy political interests in government because the criteria for 'compelling interests’ in forming Perppu are not objectively regulated. This article aims to determine the authority's validity, the basis for 'compelling interests', and a case study of the formation of Perppu No. 2 of 2020. This article uses a descriptive normative research method. The approaches used are the statutory approach and the case approach. The results of the analysis obtained are that the derivative authority held by the President is a legitimate authority according to the Law. However, the criteria for 'compelling interests' have not been regulated as a reference for deciding whether the President's application for the formation of Perppu is subjective or objective. Perppu No. 2 of 2022, the requirements for elements of economic and political interests, the validity of the issuance of the Perppu due to the legal vacuum in various fields/clusters and the issue of accelerating economic growth are not relevant and valid considering the results of the Constitutional Court's judicial review. The 'compelling interests' conditions used to issue the Perppu do not align with the constitutional method, especially in forming and changing laws and regulations.