THE INTERNET, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, AND NEW CIVIL SOCIETY IN INDONESIA: A LESSON FROM TWO TALES

TALREV

Volume 3 Issue 1, June 2018: pp. 98-115. Copyright ©2018 TALREV.
Faculty of Law Tadulako University, Palu, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.
ISSN: 2527-2977 | e-ISSN: 2527-2985.
Open acces at: http://jurnal.untad.ac.id/index.php/TLR

THE INTERNET, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, AND NEW CIVIL SOCIETY
IN INDONESIA: A LESSON FROM TWO TALES
Dani Muhtada
Faculty Of Law Semarang State University
JL. Sekaran, Semarang, Central Java, 50229, Indonesia
Telp./Fax: +62-24-8507891 Email: dmuhtada@mail.unnes.ac.id
Submitted: Jun 13, 2018; Reviewed: Jun 28, 2018; Accepted: Jun 29, 2018

Abstract
This article discusses two legal cases happened in 2009: the cases of Prita Mulyasari
and Bibit-Chandra. These cases are interesting as they involved the use of Internet as a
medium for an effective civic engagement in controlling law enforcement. The response
of the Indonesian public to the cases of Prita and Bibit-Chandra and their success stories in controlling the authorities indicate a significant existence of the so-called an
“online parliament”, which signed an emergence of a new civil society movement in the

modern Indonesia. This online parliament is much more inexpensive and independent
than the conventional parliament. However, it might only work for political issues that
attract much public attention and might be only accessible for those who have the access to the Internet.
Keywords: Civic Engagement, Civil Society, Law Enforcement, The Internet
INTRODUCTION

former happened in June, or just a month

About ten years ago, two similar

before the presidential election, the latter

cases had attracted a lot of public attention

happened in October, or nine days after

in Indonesia: The Cases of Prita Mulyasari

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) was

and Bibit-Chandra. Prita Mulyasari was a

inaugurated as the President for his second

mother of two who was captured and de-

term.

tained by the municipal prosecutors be-

These cases are interesting because

cause of her email complaining about a

they involved the use of internet by socie-

hospital’s service. Bibit and Chandra are

ty to reach their goals. In the case of Prita,

two deputy chairmen of Indonesia’s Cor-

a Facebook group made for her has col-

ruption Eradication Commission (KPK)

lected supports from 150 thousands Face-

who were arrested by the police on charg-

bookers and was successfully “forced” the

es of abuse of power and extortion related

authority to release Prita from the prose-

to a graft investigation against Anggoro

cutor’s captivity. The second case is even

Widjojo, fugitive businessman. While the

more spectacular since Bibit and Chandra

□ 98

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

received more than 1.2 millions supports

on the society’s ideal self-organization

from Facebookers. The police then re-

beyond the control of the state. As a pub-

leased Bibit-Chandra after putting them in

lic space, it refers to a space that is institu-

detention for four days.

tionally protected from the state’s auto-

This paper indicates the emergence

cratic intervention within which individu-

of new civil society reflected by the cases

als can have a freedom of association. As

of Prita and Bibit-Chandra. In these cases,

a set of social groups, it consists of mem-

people used the Internet as a means to ar-

bers who act together to reach common

ticulate the public interests. Facebook was

goals. However, Kubik underlines that a

used as an instrument to mobilize mass

civil society has to be a secondary group

and to pressure the authorities. However,

and transparent with three distinct charac-

some distinctive features can be found in

teristics: a horizontal interpersonal net-

the two cases in areas such as popular

work, a democratic deliberative structure,

support, government response, and the

and the tolerance of other similar groups

response of political parties in the House

and readiness to make collaboration or

of Representative. This paper will analyze

competition with them according to par-

the dynamics of social political move-

ticular rules based on a mutual respect.

ments and will highlight some distinctive

Rather than defining civil role in

features that differ these cases significant-

terms of social identity, Brysk (2000, p.

ly.

153) prefers to define civil society in

DISCUSSION
The Internet and Civil
Theoretical Framework

terms of its civic role. He argues that civil
Society:

society is a public and political association
outside the state whose political role is not

Civil society can be defined in many
ways. Kubik (2000, p. 181-3) mentions

three basic types of the definitions of civil
society: civil society as a normative idea,
civil society as a public space, and civil
society as a set of social groups. As a
normative idea, civil society refers to a
desirable vision of the right form of associationism in a modern society. Such a

just to aggregate, to represent, and to articulate interests, but also to create citizens and to shape consciousness. According to Brysk, civic actors in civil society
are nongovernmental and nonprofit. They
build social capital and act as mediators
between the state and private citizens.
This definition of civil society confirms
another definition of civil society by Put-

definition is used in philosophical debates
□ 99

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

nam (in Edwards and Foley, 2001, p. 7)

munication activities, while citizens chan-

who identifies a strong civil society with

nel their aspirations online via email. Kit-

high levels of civic engagement and polit-

tilson and Dalton (2008, p. 16) argues that

ical culture.

virtual civil society seems to have the

Nowadays, people are witnessing a

same benefits for citizen norms and politi-

new form of civic or political engagement.

cal involvement as conventional civil so-

Such an engagement is a result of the ad-

ciety. Virtual activities within such a soci-

vance of technology, in particular the In-

ety are related to the norms of civic partic-

ternet. The Internet has changed the way

ipatory. Their research also indicates that

people communicate each others. It is not

virtual civil society bridges trust among

only a source of information but also a

people beyond their immediate personal

medium of communication. The Internet

network. They believe that interpersonal

has been a virtual public space where

social group activity in such a virtual so-

people can communicate easily regardless

ciety seems to be more conducive to so-

of geographical differences. A research

cial trust and toleration.

conducted by Pew Internet and American

However, there is still a debate on

Life Project (2009, p. 5) discovers that

how far the Internet can affect political or

33% of internet users had a profile on a

civic engagement. Jennings and Zeitner

social networking site and that 31% of

(2003, p. 312) mention two different

them had engaged in civic or political ac-

views on the impacts of the internet on

tivities such as signing up as a “friend” of

civic engagement. First, a positive vision

a political candidate or joining a political

believes that the Internet has a power to

group on the site.

strengthen civil society and democratic

These new civic engagements have

politics in general because it extends the

a potential to generate what several schol-

opportunities for mobilization and com-

ars (Kittilson & Dalton, 2008, p. 3; Char-

munication. Second, a skeptical vision

oters, 2000, p. 22) called “virtual civil so-

believes that the Internet will generally

ciety”. As Levine (2000, p. 1) says, civil

preserve and strengthen inequalities in

society has been moving to the Internet.

civic engagement because of the “digital

Various organizations use their websites

divide” regarding the different access of

for recruitment public relations, fundrais-

the Internet. The second view sees that

ing, internal and external, and other com-

people with greater current skills and re-

□ 100

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

sources will simply use the Internet as an-

interaction effect on Internet connected-

other tool to perpetuate and exaggerate the

ness and integrated connection to neigh-

inequalities.

borhood storytelling. However, this study

The second view is supported by the

highlights, there is no significant differ-

most current research on the Internet and

ence among the three groups in terms of

civic engagement in the America conduct-

collective efficacy.

ed by Pew Internet and American Life

Warf and Grimes (1997) gives an

Project (2009). The research shows that

important point of view on the Internet

the Internet has not changed the socioeco-

and counter hegemonic discourse. They

nomic character of civic engagement in

argue that the Internet does not necessarily

the United States. This research discovers

serve for either hegemonic or counter-

that conventional political activities are

hegemonic purposes. It can be oppressive

still the domain of well educated and

as well as emancipatory. Unfortunately,

wealthy people whether they take place in

those who may benefit the most from

the real world or on the cyberspace. Indi-

emancipative uses of the Internet may

viduals with high levels of education and

have the lowest access to it. Hence, the

income are more likely to participate in

Internet may become an ineffective alter-

online civic activities than those who have

native for the real world’s politics.

the lower levels of education and income.

Two Tales: Prita and Bibit-Chandra
The Case of Prita Mulyasari
In 2009, Prita Mulyasari was a 32

A previous study by Kim (2004) on
the relationship between individuals’ Internet connection and civic engagement
also indicates the different levels of scope
of participation among three different
groups: high, low, and non internet connectors. The high internet connectors’
scope of civic participation is generally

years old woman and a mother of two.
She was a patient at Omni International
Hospital, a private hospital in Tangerang,
one of the Jakarta’s suburban areas. She
wrote an email and shared her experience
of being maltreated by the hospital. On
her email, Prita complained about the

broader than that of the other groups. In

hospital’s services, in particular about the

terms of neighborhood belonging, the

doctor’s wrong diagnose that she got a

group of low Internet connectors shows
the lowest level of neighborhood belonging. This study also indicates an obvious

dengue fever. In fact, it was not a dengue
fever. The email was originally sent to ten
of her friends, but it then spread to other

□ 101

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

hundreds of email recipients and circulat-

(i.e., Tangerang prosecutors) received a

ed widely and rapidly on numerous social

strong public pressure to release Prita

networking sites (SumbawaNews, 4 June

from detention. After being in custody

2009; Koran Tempo, 28 May 2009; Viva

without charge for three weeks, Prita was

News, 6 June 2009).

eventually released and put under “city

Responding to the spread of the

arrest” prior to her trial (DetikNews, 3

email, the hospital took legal action and

June 2009).

charged Prita with defamation. Prita lost a

The Case of Bibit – Chandra
Bibit Rianto and Chandra Hamzah

civil case and was ordered to pay Rp. 261
million fine ($37,500). Unfortunately, this
fine was not enough. Prita has also to deal
with a criminal case after being named a
suspect of violating Article 27 of the Electronic Information Transaction Law and
Articles 310 and 311 of the Indonesian
Criminal Code. The Tangerang prosecutors decided to detain Prita in the Tangerang women prison prior to her trial. Prita
was then arrested and detained in the prison on May 13, 2009 (Koran Tempo, 28
May 2009; Herald Sun, 4 June 2009).
The detention of Prita was not attracted public’s attention until a Facebook
group made to support her. More than
150,000 people signed up as Prita’s supporters in the group calling for her immediate release. Prita’s story immediately
became a hot topic. Almost all national
and local media covers her story during
the first weeks of June 2009 (detikNews, 2
June 2009; Kompas, 3 June 2009;
DetikNews, 5 June 2009). The authorities

were deputy chiefs of the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK). They
were arrested by the State Police on
charges of alleged power abuse and extortion related to a graft investigation against
Anggoro Widjojo, a fugitive businessman
who was currently in Singapore (Jakarta
Post, 13 July 2009). The police initially
suspected Bibit and Chandra had received
bribes from Anggoro in return for dropping him a suspect in his graft case. However, after failing up to collect enough evidence of bribery, the police named Bibit
and Chandra as suspects for acting beyond
their authorities – that is, issuing a travel
ban for Anggoro and another corruption
suspect, Djoko Tjandra.
Anggoro was a director of Masaro
Radiokom Ltd. He was allegedly involved
in a bribery case revolving around the
Ministry of Forestry’s radio communication system (SKRT) procurement project
whose total budget reached Rp 180 billions (US$ 12.72 millions). Anggoro was
□ 102

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

named a suspect of having bribed Yusuf

said that the issuance of a travel ban by

Erwin Faishal and three other former

KPK for a corruption suspect is not a

members of parliament who worked in the

crime (Jakarta Globe, 22 September

House of Representatives’ commission on

2009).

the forestry and agricultural sectors. The

The public believed that there was a

court has sentenced Yusuf to four and half

conflict of interest behind this detention

years in jail, while Anggoro still remain

(Antara News, 31 October 2009). Susno

fugitive.

Duadji, a chief of the police detective bu-

It is interesting to note that after de-

reau, has allegedly involved in a corrup-

claring Bibit and Chandra as suspects, the

tion case investigated by KPK. He was

State Police did not directly detain them.

caught in a telephone conversation with a

The police decided to detain them one

target of KPK’s investigation. Susno

month later because they fear these KPK

claimed that KPK abused its wire-tapping

leaders could “sway public opinion” by

powers (Detik News, 30 June 2009). KPK

holding press conference (Jakarta Globe,

argued that it had not tapped Susno. KPK

29 October). Bibit – Chandra’s lawyers

says that its members just picked up

believed that this reason was unacceptable

Susno’s conversation when he called a

and non-juridical (Hukumonline, 2 No-

suspect in one of the KPK’s corruption

vember 2009). According to them, people

investigations (Detik News, 27 September

could not be arrested just because they

2009).

make a press conference. Regarding the

This

“conflict”

was

nationally

police’s reasons for naming Bibit and

known as a conflict between the crocodile

Chandra as suspects, Abdullah Hehama-

and the gecko. The use of these words

hua, an advisor of KPK, said that the po-

(i.e., crocodile and gecko) to describe

lice took an incorrect procedure. He as-

such a conflict was originally from Susno.

sumed that the police did not consider the

In an interview session by a national mag-

Indonesian Law on KPK which allows

azine (i.e., Majalah Tempo), Susno was

KPK to ban a corruption suspect from

asked about his response regarding the

travelling overseas. What KPK members

KPK’s wire-tapping, Susno described the

did to Anggoro was legal and was not an

police as

abuse of power. Mahfud MD, a chairman

“gecko”. He said, “If there is a compari-

of Indonesian constitutional court, also

son, the metaphor is a crocodile on one

“crocodile” and KPK as

□ 103

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

hand and a gecko on the other hand. The

November 2009; Jakarta Globe, 4 No-

gecko is going up against the crocodile.

vember 2009).

Does the crocodile become angry? No, he
does not. He simply regrets that the gecko

The Emergence of New Civil Society

is being stupid” (Tempo, 6 July 2009).

The civic engagements in these two

Several weeks after the words “gecko-

cases illustrate what Kittilson and Dalton

crocodile” became popular among the

(2008, p. 3) call “virtual civil society”. It

public, the police proclaimed the two

was civil society because, as indicated by

leaders of KPK (i.e., Bibit and Chandra)

Brysk (2002, p. 153), people did not only

as criminal suspects and finally put them

move together to articulate their interests,

into the police headquarters’ detention.

but also to shape their consciousness. Civ-

The detention of Bibit and Chandra

ic actors in these cases were nonprofit and

drew public reactions and sympathies.

nongovernmental. It was “virtual move-

Several national figures including former

ment” because people used the Internet to

president Abdurrahman Wahid and reli-

channel their aspirations and to reach their

gious leaders expressed their supports for

goals. In these cases, they used Facebook

Bibit and Chandra. A Facebook group

as a means of promoting civic movement.

calling for their immediate release was

Using the framework as defined by Put-

made on the day they were arrested by the

nam (in Edwards and Foley, 2001, p. 7),

police. The group amazingly got many

these people’s movements can be classi-

supports from Indonesian Facebookers.

fied as a strong civil society because of

More than one million Facebookers joined

the high number of Facebookers involved

the group and called for the release of

in the movements. While the number of

Bibit-Chandra. In the group’s wall, the

Facebookers supported Prita reached 150

Facebookers criticized the detention of

thousand people, the number of supporters

Bibit and Chandra and asked the police to

for Bibit and Chandra reached over one

release them as soon as possible. Because

million Facebookers.

of this mounting public pressure, the po-

In both cases, people did the same

lice finally release the two KPK leaders

action for the same goals – that was, using

after detained them in the police head-

online media to free people, whom they

quarters for four days (Jakarta Globe, 3

considered as the “victims” of a legal system, from the authorities’ detention. In the

□ 104

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

first case, the victim (i.e., Prita) dealt with

because she constituted the martyr of the

the issues of the freedom of expression

freedom of expression. Prita was jailed

and the need for good health services. In

because of her complaint email. Many

the second case, the victims (i.e., Bibit

people, including former vice president

and Chandra) dealt with the issue of cor-

Jusuf Kalla (Kompas, 3 June 2006), con-

ruption, which is considered as an ex-

sidered the charges against Prita as “un-

traordinary crime in the country. Both

fair” since she just shared her experience

cases attracted public attention because

to her friends via an email. Prita was

the issues were closely related to public

named a suspect of violating Article 27 of

affairs.

the Electronic Information Transaction

The Prita’s case might be personal

Law. The article says that everyone inten-

as she dealt with her own doctors and the

tionally and illegally distributes or trans-

hospital. She was disappointed with the

mits or makes accessible electronic infor-

hospital’s services and she shared her

mation and or an electronic document that

complaint with other friends on the Inter-

contains humiliation can be sent to jail for

net because she failed to get a satisfying

maximum 6 years and or 1 billion rupiahs.

explanation from the hospital. Yet, this

Prita’s supporters argued that this article

problem was actually a problem for many

can hinder the process of democratization

Indonesian patients (Suara Karya, 20 No-

in Indonesia. The article might discourage

vember 2006; Pontianak Post, 13 Oktober

people to critique or to complain poor

2001; Sinar Indonesia Baru, 5 Oktober

public services in the country. The pun-

2007). Some of them articulated their

ishments attached to the article might

complaints in the media, and many more

make people afraid of expressing their

others might not do the same thing be-

feedbacks or comments regarding public

cause of their limited access to the media.

services they received. The Prita’s case

Here, Prita’s complaint on public health

gave a chance to the public to challenge

services was actually a representation of

and to question such a clause of law. To

the disappointment of many patients and

them, a law should protect citizens’ rights,

their families.

not the opposite (Okezone, 16 June 2009).

A strong public support for Prita

Similar to the Prita’s case, the case

was not only because she represent the

of Bibit-Chandra drew public attention

interests of unsatisfied patients, but also

because it was related to the issue of cor-

□ 105

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

ruption, which is one of the most chal-

Global, 3 November 2009; Antara News,

lenging problems in the country (Jakarta

29 October 2009). The proponents of Bib-

Post, 31 October 2009). Bibit and Chandra

it-Chandra also believed that the police’s

were not charged on a corruption crime,

arguments to name these KPK leaders as

but their positions as deputy chairperson

suspects were not convincing. As is men-

of KPK made people worry about the fu-

tioned above, the police initially suspected

ture of corruption eradication in Indone-

Bibit and Chandra had received bribes

sia. The public suspiciously thought that

from Anggoro in return for dropping him

the detention of these KPK leaders was

a suspect in his corruption case. After fail-

part of a strategy to weaken this anticor-

ing up to collect enough evidence of brib-

ruption body. Comments written in the

ery, the police then named Bibit and

wall of the Facebook group illustrated that

Chandra as suspects for acting beyond

some people view this detention as a

their authorities (i.e., issuing a travel ban

product of a high level conspiracy to

for Anggoro, a fugitive businessman and a

weaken KPK (Banjarmasin Post, 31 Octo-

corruption suspect). Mahfud MD, a pro-

ber 2009). A statement made by 32 NGOs

fessor of legal studies and a chairman of

in East Java also confirmed public suspi-

Indonesian constitutional court, argued

cion about such a conspiracy to weaken

that the issuance of a travel ban by KPK

this corruption eradication commission

for a corruption suspect is not a crime (Ja-

(Viva News, 3 November 2009).

karta Globe, 22 September 2009).

People also questioned the reasons

As far as civic movement is con-

for why the police detained Bibit and

cerned, three similarities can be observed

Chandra (Media Indonesia, 30 October

from the two cases. First, people used Fa-

2009; Detik News, 29 October 2009). The

cebook as a means to get popular support

police decided to detain them because

and to pressure the authorities. In the two

they fear these KPK leaders could “sway

cases, Facebook became an efficient and

public opinion” by holding press confer-

effective means to send their message and

ence (Jakarta Globe, 29 October). Legal

was one of the crucial factors forcing au-

observers saw this reason was unaccepta-

thorities to release Prita, Bibit and Chan-

ble and non-juridical. According to them,

dra from their detention. Second, as can

people could not be arrested just because

be seen from comments written on the

they make a press conference (Harian

wall of Facebook groups, people consid-

□ 106

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

ered Prita and Bibit – Chandra as the op-

promoting civil society. With the support

pressed and the victims of legal system. In

from media (e.g., TVs, newspapers, radi-

the case of Prita, people viewed Prita as a

os), the cyber communities using Face-

victim of the article 27 of the Electronic

book has successfully mobilize popular

Information Transaction Law, which was

support and has effectively pressured the

mistakenly interpreted (Sukemi, 2009). In

authorities to listen to their voices. Warf

the case of Bibit – Chandra, people ac-

and Grimes (1997) argue that the Internet

cused the police of having mistakenly

can be oppressive as well as emancipa-

named the KPK leaders as suspects (Ja-

tory. It does not necessarily serve for ei-

karta Globe, 22 September 2009; Harian

ther hegemonic or counter-hegemonic

Global, 3 November 2009; Antara News,

purposes. Yet, in these two cases, the In-

29 October 2009). People also viewed

ternet acted as an emancipative instrument

Prita, Bibit and Chandra as their heroes

and served for counter-hegemonic purpos-

and the representatives of public interest.

es.

Prita was considered as a personification
of the freedom of expression and the need

Same Models, Different Features
Although the two cases shared simi-

for good public services, while Bibit and

lar characteristics, they also have distinc-

Chandra were considered as the heroes of

tive features. First, they differ significant-

corruption eradication. Third, the media

ly in the number popular support. Prita got

involvement was very strong in the two

supports from 150 thousand Facebookers,

cases. The media blew up the cases and

while Bibit – Chandra got more than one

continuously updated the increase number

million Facebookers’ supports. It seemed

of Facebookers supporting the cases as

that the more people consider “the vic-

well as quoted Facebookers’ comments

tims” as the representatives of public in-

written in the Facebook walls. The Inter-

terests, the higher supports they give to

net and the media played an important

“the victims”. In the first case, the victim

role in pressuring the authorities and in

(i.e., Prita) fought against the freedom of

shaping people consciousness.

expression and the need for good health

Hence, referring to Jennings and

service. In the second case, the victims

Zeitner’s view (2003, p. 312) on the im-

(i.e., Bibit and Chandra) fought against

pacts of the internet on civic engagement,

corruption, which is considered as an ex-

the Internet has played a significant role in

traordinary crime in the country.

□ 107

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

The support for the second victims

2009).Vice President Jusuf Kalla, who

was much higher than that for the first vic-

was running against President Yudhoyono

tim because of the difference in nature of

in the July presidential elections, de-

the problems experienced by the victims.

scribed the charges against Prita as “un-

In the first case, although Prita can be a

fair” and asked the legal authorities to re-

representation of public interests (i.e., the

lease her from detention (Viva News, 3

freedom of expression and the need for

June 2009). In the case of Bibit-Chandra,

good public service), the victim actually

no

dealt with her personal affairs. She com-

Yudhoyono or Vice President Boediono to

plained the hospital service and shared it

explicitly support Bibit-Chandra. An ex-

with her friends online. In the second

planation was given the Minister of

case, Bibit and Chandra acted public fig-

Communication and Information, Tifatul

ures. They represented a state agency (i.e.,

Sembiring,

KPK) issuing a travel ban for a corruption

Yudhoyono did not want to intervene in

suspect, an action which became a basic

any legal process (Kompas, 30 October

argument for the police to name them as

2009).

comment

made

saying

by

that

President

President

suspects. People viewed that the detention

Such a different response was a re-

of these KPK leaders will hinder KPK’s

sult of the differences in the political con-

efforts to eradicate corruption in the coun-

text and the complexity of the issues. It is

try. Even, some of them believed that such

important to note that the case of Prita be-

a detention was part of a systematic effort

came so popular during May and June

to weaken KPK. These views encouraged

2009, which was a period of the 2009

more people to support KPK and to call

presidential campaign. In this context, it

for the KPK leaders’ immediate release.

was understandable why all the Indonesian presidential candidates and their

Second, the government responded
to the issues differently. In the case of
Prita, the government responded the issue
very quickly. President Yudhoyono, in the
midst of an election campaign, has called
on the police, the prosecutors and the
courts to be lenient and to consider public
justice

(Tempointeraktif,

3

teams want to gain political benefits from
public comments to support Prita. Megawati Soekarnoputri who was not in the
government and was also a president candidate made her visit to the Prita's detention to show her support. This political
context made the detention of Prita much

June
□ 108

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

more interesting to political elites than the

police was the most corrupt state agency

detention of Bibit-Chandra. While the

with a corruption index of 4.2. The deten-

former happened during the presidential

tion of two KPK leaders made the police’s

campaign, the latter happened just nine

image even worse. This encouraged more

days after SBY was inaugurated as the

public support to Bibit and Chandra and

President for the second term.

made the number of Facebookers signing

Complexity of the issues might also

up as their supporters continued to in-

influence the government's responses to

crease even after they had been released

the cases. The Prita's case is much simpler

(Solo Pos, 9 November 2009).

than the Bibit-Chandra's case. Unlike the

Third, the difference can also be

case of Prita, which was more personal

seen in the response of political elites in

and merely involved her personal com-

the House of Representative (DPR). Re-

plaints with the services of a private hos-

sponding to the Prita’s case, the voice of

pital, the case of Bibit-Chandra was more

DPR was similar to the voice of the pub-

institutional and involved rivalry between

lic. The DPR’s Commission IX, which

state agencies (Viva News, 11 November

was a commission on health affairs, called

2009). The case of Bibit and Chandra was

the hosptal’s management for public hear-

about corruption and the public trust to the

ing session. At the end of the session, the

government institution.

commission insisted the government to

As far as corruption practices among

revoke the hospital’s operational permit.

state agencies are concerned, the image of

They also asked the management to apol-

Indonesian Police was not really good

ogize to Prita and to withdraw its suit

among Indonesian society. According to

against her (Viva News, 8 June 2009).

Transparency International Indonesia’s

A similar response could not be

2008 Survey (TII, 2009), the State Police

found in the case of Bibit and Chandra.

was the most corrupt institution in Indone-

The voice of DPR in this case was not in

sia with a corruption perception index of

line with the aspiration of the Public. In-

4.8. The survey also revealed that the

stead of supporting KPK, in a hearing ses-

business community saw the police as the

sion with the police, the DPR’s Commis-

most bribe-riddled institution in the coun-

sion III insisted the police to continue

try. A similar survey conducted in 2007

with the case. This commission on legal

by TII showed the same thing – that is, the

affairs argued that they did not want to

□ 109

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

stand in one’s side, but to encourage law

(Detik News, 8 November). As a response

enforcement in the country (Detik News,

of this critique, the commission changed

8 November 2009). This difference was

their stand. In the following public hear-

interesting because the more online sup-

ing with the Attorney General, it gave a

port in the cyberspace did not really mean

statement asking the authorities to stop the

the more real support in the House of Rep-

case (Solo Pos, 9 November 2009; Solo

resentative. In the case of Prita, she got

Pos, 18 November 2009).

around 150 thousand supports from Face-

A weak response of DPR (i.e.,

bookers, but she got a full support from

Commission III) and a strong support of

the House of Representative. In the case

Facebookers (i.e., around 1.3 million Fa-

of KPK, Bibit and Chandra got more than

cebookers supporting Bibit-Chandra) en-

one million supports from Facebookers,

couraged many media to think of what

but they did not get any support from the

they called “online parliament” (Okezone,

House of Representative. There were a

8 November 2009; Suara Merdeka, 9 No-

number of members of the House showing

vember 2009; Kompasiana, 10 November

their individual supports for Bibit and

2009; Joglo Semar, 12 November 2009).

Chandra. However, this was an individual,

It is not a conventional parliament that

not an institutional support in a formal

offers online public services. It refers to a

meeting.

cyber community who engages in political

Such a response of the DPR’s commission III raised criticism from the pub-

activities to control and to balance traditional political powers.

lic (Jawa Pos, 8 November 2009). Cri-

The response of Indonesian Face-

tiques also came from Facebookers (Detik

bookers to the cases of Prita and Bibit-

News, 9 November 2009). They made an-

Chandra and their success stories in con-

other special Facebook group to articulate

trolling the authorities indicate a signifi-

their disappointments. Around 64 thou-

cant existence of an “online parliament”.

sands Facebookers has signed up as the

Such an online parliament signed an

members of this online group. To these

emergence of a new civil society move-

Facebookers, DPR has failed to function

ment in modern Indonesia. As a political

as the representative of the Indonesian

entity, this online parliament has several

people. They said that DPR has showed an

advantages. It is much more inexpensive

insulting drama to the people of Indonesia

and independent compared to convention-

□ 110

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

al parliament. It can be an efficient and

ered as a representative of the needs for

effective means to reach political goals.

good public services and the freedom of

People can just sit in front of their com-

expression. Bibit-Chandra drew public

puters or use other similar electronic de-

attention because their strong relationship

vices to engage in a civic movement.

with the efforts of corruption eradication

However, it also has several disad-

in the country.

vantages. Such an online parliament might

As far as civic movement is con-

be only work for political or public issues

cerned, three similarities can be observed

that attract much public attention. Issues

from the two cases. First, people used Fa-

that only interest a small portion of com-

cebook as a means to get popular support

munity members will not make an online

and to pressure the authorities. Second,

parliament able to influence a public poli-

both Prita and Bibit – Chandra were wide-

cy. In addition, this online parliament is

ly considered as the oppressed and the

only accessible for people who have ac-

victims of legal system. They were also

cess on the Internet. Unfortunately, as is

considered as the representatives of public

shown by many studies (Pew Internet and

interests. Third, the media involvement

American Life Project, 2009; Kim, 2004;

was very strong in these cases. The media

Warf and Grimes, 1997), the number of

blew up the cases and continuously updat-

people having access to the Internet is

ed the increase number of Facebookers

much smaller than those who do not ac-

supporting the cases. The Internet and the

cess on it.

media played an important role in pressuring the authorities and in shaping people

CONCLUSION

consciousness.

The cases of Prita and Bibit-

However, several distinct features

Chandra reflect an emergence of new civil

can also be found in the cases. First, they

society movement in modern Indonesia. In

differ significantly in the number popular

both cases, people did the same action for

support. Bibit-Chandra got more supports

the same goals – that was, using online

than Prita. Although Prita constituted a

media to free people from the authorities’

representative of public interests (i.e., the

detention. These cases attracted public

freedom of expression and the need for

attention because the issues were closely

good public service), she actually dealt

related to public affairs. Prita was consid-

with something more personal than that

□ 111

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

was dealt by Bibit-Chandra. Second, the

Democracy, Vol. 11, N. 3, pp. 151 –

government was more responsive in the

165

case of Prita than that of the case of Bibit-

Charoters, T. 2000. “Civil society: Think

Chandra. This difference was a result of

again”, Foreign Policy, Winter 1999

the differences in the political context and

– 2000, p. 18-29

the complexity of the issues. Third, the

Jennings, M. K. and Zeitner, V., 2003.

representativeness of the House of Repre-

“Internet Use and Civic Engage-

sentative differs in both cases. In the case

ment: A Longitudinal Analysis”,

of Prita, the voice of DPR was similar to

Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 67,

the voice of the public. Meanwhile, in the

pp. 311 – 334

case of Bibit and Chandra, their voice of

Kittilson, M. C. and Dalton, R. J., 2008.

DPR was not really in line with the aspira-

“The Internet and virtual civil socie-

tion of the Public.

ty: The new frontier of social capi-

The response of Indonesian Face-

tal”. UC Irvine: Center for the Study

bookers to the cases of Prita and Bibit-

of Democracy, retrieved 2 Novem-

Chandra and their success stories in con-

ber

trolling the authorities indicate a signifi-

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2cj1c

cant existence of the so-called an “online

67k

2009,

from:

parliament”, which signed an emergence

Kim, Y. C. 2004. “Internet connectedness

of a new civil society movement in mod-

and civic engagement: A multilevel

ern Indonesia. As a political entity, this

approach”, Paper presented at the

online parliament is much more inexpen-

annual meeting of the International

sive and independent compared to the

Communication Association, New

conventional parliament. However, it

Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans LA,

might only work for political issues that

May 27, retrieved 13 November

attract much public attention and might be

2009,

only accessible for those who have the

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p

access to the Internet.

112812_index.html

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brysk, A., 2000. “Democratizing civil society in Latin America”, Journal of

from

Kubik, J. 2000. “Between the state and
networks of “cousins”: The role of
civil society and noncivil associations in the democratization of Po-

□ 112

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

land”, in Nancy Bermeo and Philip

/tahun/2009/bulan/01/tanggal/21/id/

Nord, Civil Society before Democ-

3845/

racy, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000, pp. 181 – 207

Warf, B. and Grimes, J., 1997. “Counter
hegemonic discourses and the Inter-

Levin, P. 2000. “The Internet and civil

net”, Geographical Review, Vol. 87,

society”, Philosophy & Public Poli-

No. 2, Cyberspace and Geographical

cy, Vol. 20, No. 4, University of

Space, pp. 259 – 274

Maryland: College of Public Affairs,
retrieved 13 November 2009, from

Newspapers, e-News:

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/ippp

1. Prita’s Case

Pew Internet and American Life Project,
2009. “The Internet and civic engagement”, September, retrieved 2
November

2009,

from:

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports
/2009/15-The

-Internet-and-Civic-

DetikNews, 2 June 2009, “Bebaskan Prita
gencar di Facebook”
DetikNews, 3 June 2009, “Prita Mulyasari
bebas dari penjara”
DetikNews, 5 June 2009, “Dukungan di
Facebook hampir mencapai 150 ribu
anggota”

Engagement.aspx
Sukemi, 2009. “Kesalahan dalam me-

Herald Sun, 4 June 2009, “Prita Mulyasari

mahami UU ITE”, Okezone.Com,

faces jail over email complaint”

Rabu 17 June, retrieved, 28 Novem-

Koran Tempo, 28 May 2009, “Mengeluh

ber,

from

http://suar.okezone.com/read/2009/0
6/17/58/230086/kesalahan-dalamTII, 2009. Measuring corruption index in
Indonesia

corruption

perception index 2008 and bribery
index, Jakarta: Transparency International Indonesia, retrieved 30 November

2009,

han”
Kompas, 3 June 2009, “Prita: Saya ingin
pulang”

memahami-uu-ite

Indonesia:

lewat milis, ibu rumah tangga dita-

from

http://www.ti.or.id/en/publication/84

Kompas, 3 June 2009, “Wapres: Polisi
harus adil soal Prita”
Okezone, 16 June 2009, “Prita korban pertama UU ITE”
Pontianak Post, 13 Oktober 2001, “Surat
pembaca: Kecewa terhadap layanan
RS Dr. Soedarso”

□ 113

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

Sinar Indonesia Baru, 5 Oktober 2007,
“Kecewa

pelayanan

RSUD

Si-

dikalang, keluarga pasien marahmarah”
Suara Karya, 20 November 2006, “Suara
pembaca: Kecewa atas pelayanan
RS Jantung Harapan Kita”
SumbawaNews, 4 June 2009, “Inilah
kronologis kasus Prita Mulyasari”
Tempointeraktif, 3 June 2009, “SBY ikut
komentari kasus Prita Mulyasari”
Viva News, 6 June 2009, “Prita trauma
menulis email”
Viva News, 3 June 2009, “Jusuf Kalla:
Kenapa kirim email masuk penjara”
2. Bibit-Chandra’s case
Antara News, 31 October 2009, “KPK
deputies’ arrest sparks speculation
about police’s motive”
Antara News, 29 October 2009, “Penahanan Chandra karena konferensi
pers tidak logis”
Banjarmasin Post, 31 October 2009, “Bibit & Chandra dapat dukungan 74 ribu Facebookers”
Detik News, 29 October 2009, “Polri harus beberkan alasan penahanan yang
rasional”

Detik News, 27 September 2009, “Bibit:
Bukan kita menyadap, Susno-nya
yang masuk ke penyadap kita”
Detik News, 30 June 2009, “Komjen
Susno: Menyadap semua orang itu
penyalahgunaan kekuasaan”
Detik News, 8 November 2009, “Komisi
III dukung Polri tuntaskan kasus
Chandra-Bibit”
Detik News, 8 November 2009, “Muncul
gerakan ‘sejuta Facebookers kecam
komisi III DPR’”
Detik News, 9 November 2009, “Kesalahan ketua komisi III yang bikin
dikritik jamaah Facebook”
Harian Global, 3 November 2009, “Penahanan Bibit – Chandra dan blunder
Polri”
Hukumonline, 2 November 2009, “Penahanan Bibit – Chandra: Alasan polisi ‘konyol’ dan bukan alas an
yuridis”
Jakarta Post, 13 July 2009, “Fugitive
Anggoro Widjaja spotted in Singapore”
Jakarta Post, 31 October 2009, “Public
Support KPK deputy chairmen”
Jakarta

Globe,

29

November

2009,

“KPK’s Chandra Bibit arrested”
Jakarta Globe, 3 November 2009, “Indonesia antigraft deputies Bibit Chandra released”

□ 114

Tadulako Law Review | Vol. 3 Issue 1, June 2018

Jakarta Globe, 4 November 2009, “Re-

Okezone, 8 November 2009, “Kekuata
parlemen online”

leased KPK Officers Bibit and
Chandra Overwhelmed By Public

Solo Pos, 9 November 2009, “Dukungan

Support”

Facebookers

Jakarta Globe, 22 September 2009, “Indonesian antigraft body KPK plans

Bibit-Chandra

terus

menguat”
Solo Pos, 9 November 2009, “Takut tuai

strong action against police”

kecaman masyarakat, komisi III

Jawa Pos, 8 November 2009, “Di balik
layar rapat kerja komisi III dengan

berubah sikap”
Solo Pos, 18 November 2009, “Komisi III

kapolri”

minta Polri dan Kejagung hentikan

Joglo Semar, 12 November 2009, “Parlemen online, tantangan bagi anggota

kasus Bibit-Chandra”
Suara Merdeka, 9 November 2009, “Fe-

DPR”

nomena parlemen online”

Kompas, 30 October 2009, “Tifatul: SBY

Tempo, 6 July 2009 “Susno Duadji: Cicak

tak campuri soal Bibit dan Chandra”
Kompasiana, 10 November 2009, “Men-

kok mau melawan buaya”
Viva News, 11 November 2009, “Todung:

imbang Parlemen Online”

Antara mafia hukum and rivalitas”

Media Indonesia, 30 October 2009, “Polri

Viva News, 3 November 2009, “LSM se-

diminta transparan soal penahanan

luruh Jatim turun ke jalan hari ini”

Bibit dan Hamzah”
***

□ 115