Bank garansi merupakan bagian dari perjanjian penjaminan yang bersifat tambahan dan memerlukan suatu perjanjian pokok yang sah. Namun, dalam praktiknya, kasus-kasus yang melibatkan bank garansi yang diterbitkan sebelum perjanjianpokoknya dapat terjadi. Salah satunya dapat ditemukan dalam Putusan PengadilanNomor 115K/PDT/2017 antara ACG South Bengara II dan Bank Sumsel Babel.Rumusan masalah yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana pengaturanpenerbitan bank garansi menurut peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia,bagaimana tanggung jawab hukum bank terhadap klaim pencairan Bank Garansiyang telah diterbitkan mendahului perjanjian pokok, dan bagaimana kesesuaianPutusan No. 115K/PDT/2017 dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Bentukpenelitian ini ialah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian berupapenelitian deskriptif. Dalam penelitian ini diteliti kesesuaian norma-norma hukumyang berlaku dengan putusan hakim terkait dengan permasalahan tanggung jawabbank pemberi bank garansi terhadap klaim bank garansi yang mendahuluiperjanjian pokok pada Putusan MA No. 115K/PDT/2017. Simpulan penelitian inipenerbitan bank garansi harus memenuhi persyaratan penerbitan dalam Buku XVIKUHPerdata dan SEDir BI 23/7/UKU/1991. Tanggung jawab hukum bankterhadap klaim pencairan bank garansi ialah bank wajib untuk membayar bila telahterjadi wanprestasi dan bank garansi telah sesuai dengan persyaratan yang meliputiadanya perjanjian pokok yang sah. Oleh karenanya, putusan hakim yangmenyatakan keabsahan bank garansi dan menyatakan Bank Sumsel Babelwanprestasi adalah tidak sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan karenaperjanjian yang mendasari bank garansi belum ditandatangani oleh para pihak danbelum diserahkan ke Bank Sumsel Babel. Saran penelitian ini adalah bank patutmemastikan perjanjian pokok dari bank garansi yang diterbitkan sah dan berlaku.

---

Bank guarantee is a part of a guarantee agreement with an ancillary nature and requires a valid underlying agreement. However, in practice, cases involving bank

guarantees which are issued prior to the underlying agreement are uncommon. One

of which can be found in Court Decision No. 115K/PDT/2017 between ACG South

Bengara II and Bank Sumsel Babel. The issues that will be analyzed in this paper

are the regulation of the issuance of bank guarantees according to the laws in

Indonesia, the legal responsibility of banks against claims for disbursement of Bank

Guarantees issued prior to the underlying agreement, and the conformity of

Decision No. 115K/PDT/2017 to the laws. The form of this research is normative

juridical research with a typology of research in the form of descriptive research.

This research analyzes the conformity of the applicable legal norms to the court

decision relating to the issuing bank’s responsibility against the disbursement

claim of the bank guarantee issued prior to the underlying agreement. It concludes that the issuance of bank guarantees must satisfy the issuance requirements stipulated in Book XVI of the Indonesian Civil Code and SE Dir BI 23/7/UKU/1991. The legal responsibility of banks against a claim of bank

guarantee disbursements is that banks are obliged to pay so long as there has been

a default and the bank guarantee is issued pursuant to the requirements which

include the existence of a valid underlying agreement. Therefore, the decision of

the judges stating the validity of the bank guarantee and declaring Bank Sumsel

Babel to be in default is not in accordance with the laws because the underlying

agreement that forms the basis of the bank guarantee has not been signed by the

parties and has not been submitted to Bank Sumsel Babel.