KETIDAKSINKRONAN KEBIJAKAN KEPEMILIKAN TUNGGAL PADA PERBANKAN INDONESIA (SINGLE PRESENCE POLICY) TERHADAP PENGATURAN PEMILIKAN SAHAM MENURUT UU NO 5 TAHUN 1999

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