Banking plays an important role in the multifaceted economy of a certain
nation. One‟s economy will advance if it is supported by well-built banking. Banking
will be strong if supported by enough capital and effective supervision. Such
rationale encourages the establishment of the Indonesia Bank Regulation Number 8/
16/ PBI/ 2006 as regard the Single Presence Policy in Indonesia Banking.
Unfortunately, the Indonesia Bank Regulation Number 8/ 16/ PBI/ 2006 notably
article 2 subsection 2 is in incompatible with Act number 5 year 1999 concerning
about the monopoly practice and unfair competition prohibition stated in the article
27. Article 2 subsection 1 Bank of Indonesia Regulation number 8/ 16/ PBI/ 2006
stipulates that every side can become stockholder leader only in 1 (one) bank. This
stipulation is in contradiction with article 27 Act number 5 year 1999 giving
independence for businessman to have stock without limitation as long as they do not
violate the item mentioned in a and b in that article.
Problem formulation in this research is what causes contradiction between
Indonesia Bank Regulation Number 8/ 16/ PBI/ 2006 about Single Presence Policy in
Indonesia Banking toward Act Number 5 year 2006 about Monopoly Practice and
Unfair Practice Prohibition. The purpose of this research are to know and get data
relate to the contradiction resulted in Indonesia Bank Regulation Number 8/ 16/ PBI/
2006 about Single Presence Policy in Indonesia Banking toward Act Number 5 year
1999 about Monopoly practice and Unfair Competition Prohibition. The research
method employed is normative research focusing the analysis toward positive law
norm by doing abstraction through deduction process from positive law norm in the
form of vertical law systematization.
The result of the research is that there is a sociology factor and juridical factor
causing contradiction between those two regulations. Sociology factor in the form of
1998 economic crisis experience and its hope to make Indonesia banking becomes
International level bank. Juridical factor is Act Number 5 year 1999 does not become
juridical source in forming this Indonesia Bank Regulation. The suggestion for the
Indonesia Bank is that in forming Indonesia Bank Regulation, the use of complete
juridical source and side having importance to propose material test toward that
regulation to Supreme Court is then necessary.