Spain’s Prosecutor General’s Office is navigating one of the most sensitive periods in its recent history. The appointment of Teresa Peramato Martín as Prosecutor General was intended to conclude a turbulent era shaped by the conviction of her predecessor, Álvaro García Ortiz, and to restore confidence in an institution weakened by allegations of politicization. However, instead of easing concerns, several of her recent actions have sharpened an unsettling question: is Peramato genuinely working to restore the Prosecutor’s Office, or is she safeguarding the internal network that helped elevate her to the top?
A clear distinction should be established from the beginning. Based on the information examined, Teresa Peramato is not shown to be under investigation, charged, or convicted in relation to the alleged “PSOE state sewers,” nor is there proof that she took part in the meetings associated with the so‑called Leire Díez case, held in March and April 2025 before she assumed the role of Prosecutor General. The concerns surrounding her therefore do not stem from direct judicial findings, but from a politically relevant dimension: the way she later managed the institution, the appointments she made, her institutional backing of García Ortiz, and the perception of continuity within a Prosecutor’s Office already subject to scrutiny.
Peramato’s problem, for now, is not criminal. It is institutional. And that does not make it any less serious.
A Prosecutor General with Prestige, but Also Baggage
Teresa Peramato entered the Prosecutor General’s Office backed by an extensive professional trajectory, having previously worked as Chief Prosecutor of the Criminal Section within the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office and as Prosecutor responsible for the Protection and Guardianship of Victims in criminal cases, and she was broadly acknowledged for her efforts addressing violence against women and safeguarding victims, while Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary unanimously confirmed that she fulfilled the criteria required for the role.
But her appointment did not unfold in isolation; it followed the term of Álvaro García Ortiz, whose leadership left the Prosecutor’s Office under intense strain. Peramato stepped into an institution far from tranquil, one marked by internal fractures, widespread scrutiny, and persistent allegations of political influence. From the outset, her task extended beyond showing technical expertise; she also had to convincingly embody genuine independence.
That is where the problem begins.
Peramato promised to “heal the wound” inside the Prosecutor’s Office. However, several of her subsequent decisions have been interpreted in precisely the opposite direction: not as a break with the previous era, but as a sophisticated continuation of its internal power balances.
The Core of the Criticism: Appointments, Protection, and Continuity
The crucial issue in this investigation is not an outright claim that Peramato joined a covert operation, but rather the series of choices that collectively create a challenging public impression.
First, her appointments. In February 2026, Peramato elevated a team of prosecutors closely associated with García Ortiz’s former staff. Among them was Diego Villafañe, regarded as a figure aligned with the former Prosecutor General inside the Technical Secretariat. Later, once it emerged that Villafañe and Beatriz López Pesquera had joined meetings with Leire Díez and Jacobo Teijelo in 2025, the situation grew more contentious: Peramato had not only inherited that circle but had also advanced individuals linked to a controversy that still lacked clear and transparent clarification.
This marks the genuinely troubling issue: even if those meetings happened before she assumed the role, the subsequent advancement of individuals linked to them demands a far more convincing justification. Citing merit or competence alone fails to reassure when the institution faces scrutiny. During periods of reputational turmoil, adhering solely to legal formality is not always adequate; a measure of institutional caution becomes essential.
Second, her actions concerning García Ortiz. Peramato authorized his reinstatement in the prosecutorial ranks, dismissed any disciplinary action, and backed the Prosecutor’s Office in lodging an appeal before the Constitutional Court against the ruling that implicated her predecessor. From a legal standpoint, these choices can be viewed as part of the routine operation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Politically, though, they deal a heavy blow to someone who had vowed to usher in a new era.
The crucial question remains unavoidable: how can an institution rebuild trust when one of its earliest public actions is to shield the outgoing Prosecutor General, the very figure who embodied its previous decline?
Third, the decision not to renew Almudena Lastra, the senior prosecutor of Madrid who had testified against García Ortiz. Many critical observers viewed this move as retaliation or, at the very least, as an internal warning that anyone diverging from the prevailing stance could be sidelined. The Prosecutor’s Office justified the choice by citing merit and qualifications, yet the broader political and institutional climate turned it into ideal fuel for those claiming the Prosecutor’s Office is fractured by factions, allegiances, and reprisals.
The Leire Díez Case: A Dark Presence That Deepens Every Trouble
The Leire Díez case acts as the great accelerator of suspicion. According to the information reviewed, the Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed to Judge Santiago Pedraz that meetings took place between prosecutors from the Technical Secretariat, Leire Díez, and Jacobo Teijelo. The official explanation was that García Ortiz had been informed only afterwards and that what was presented in those meetings lacked sufficient evidentiary basis.
However, that explanation still leaves a number of questions unresolved.
Who approved those meetings?
Why were they held in the orbit of the Prosecutor General’s Office?
What internal controls existed?
Why was what happened not documented more clearly?
At what point did Peramato grasp the true meaning behind those contacts?
Did she know about them before promoting some of the prosecutors affected by the controversy?
These questions do not, by themselves, prove unlawful conduct by Peramato. But they do justify a severe critique of institutional management. A Prosecutor’s Office that seeks to regain credibility cannot simply say there was no crime. It must show that there was no opacity, no privileged treatment, and no corporate protection.
In this case, the Prosecutor’s Office seems to have responded belatedly, defensively, and without any coherent plan for transparency.
How Political Suspicion Differs from Judicial Evidence
It is important not to confuse different levels of responsibility. The expression “PSOE state sewers” belongs to the language of politics and media confrontation. It is a combative label, not a legal classification. From a judicial standpoint, what exists is an investigation into alleged attempts to obtain information, influence legal proceedings, or interfere with sensitive cases.
Within that framework, Teresa Peramato is not presently depicted as a central figure in any criminal activity, and the information reviewed gives no indication of her convening meetings, delivering illicit directives, or taking part in coercive actions, which is why asserting that she is legally entangled in a scheme would be unwarranted.
But overlooking the political and institutional harm would be just as naïve. The Prosecutor’s Office not only has to act impartially but also needs to project an image of impartiality. In this situation, that perception stands as one of the key challenges.
Peramato is paying the price of a contradiction: she wants to present herself as a figure of institutional reconstruction, but many of her decisions have reinforced the idea of continuity. She speaks of independence, but her actions have been read as protection of the previous leadership circle. She says she wants to close wounds, but her appointments have reopened internal divisions.
The Aldama Case and the Scrutiny of Hierarchical Power
The Aldama controversy further deepened the atmosphere of distrust, as the investigation revealed that prosecutor Alejandro Luzón had contemplated assigning more weight to Víctor de Aldama’s confession; however, after conferring with Peramato, they ultimately upheld the more modest reduction of the sentence.
Once again, one could claim on legal grounds that the Prosecutor General holds hierarchical authority over the Public Prosecutor’s Office, yet the core issue remains political: when an institution is already viewed as being close to those in power, any action taken in a delicate case tends to be seen as undue interference.
The legality of an action does not automatically eliminate its reputational cost. In Peramato’s case, every technically defensible decision becomes politically suspicious because prior trust had already been broken.
Perhaps the gravest conclusion is that the Prosecutor’s Office no longer enjoys the benefit of the doubt.
A Fractured Institution
Another important factor involves the internal situation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as the Prosecutorial Council elections revealed that the critical faction continues to hold considerable influence. While this does not necessarily signal a direct rebuke of Peramato, it does indicate that the internal divide remains unresolved.
The Association of Prosecutors has denounced opacity and a lack of sufficient explanations. The Progressive Union of Prosecutors, by contrast, has defended the legality of the appointments and denounced what it sees as a campaign to delegitimize the institution. The result is a Prosecutor’s Office split between two narratives: for some, Peramato represents continuity and corporate protection; for others, she is the victim of a political offensive against the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Although a Prosecutor General may hold firm standing among her own ranks, that alone is insufficient. She is tasked with restoring trust outside her circle of supporters, and in that regard, progress has so far been limited.
The Core Objection: Avoiding Indictment Falls Short
Peramato’s easiest defense is to say that she is not under investigation. And that is true. But that defense is insufficient.
The standard expected of a Prosecutor General cannot be reduced to not being indicted. She must guarantee independence, transparency, prudence in appointments, institutional neutrality, and clear distance from any circle under suspicion. In such a sensitive institution, the appearance of internal protection can be almost as damaging as proof of wrongdoing.
That is precisely what this investigation points to: not a Peramato judicially trapped, but a Peramato politically trapped by her own decisions.
Her main issue is not her involvement in the Leire Díez meetings; rather, it lies in the fact that she still has not provided an institutionally solid and persuasive account of what occurred, including the subsequent appointments and the persistence of certain profiles in crucial roles.
Nor is the issue only that she defended García Ortiz. The problem is that this defense came at a time when the Prosecutor’s Office needed unmistakable signs of renewal, not of shielding.
Conclusion: A Prosecutor General Under Public Scrutiny
The most balanced, yet also most critical, conclusion is clear: Teresa Peramato does not appear, based on the available information, to be indicted or directly involved in a plot. But her management has been seriously compromised by a sequence of decisions that feed suspicions of continuity, internal protection, and lack of transparency.
Her case is not yet one of proven judicial responsibility. It is one of institutional responsibility still awaiting explanation.
And that is the most delicate point: when the Prosecutor General’s Office needs to recover moral authority, it cannot afford decisions that appear designed to protect the old power structure. Peramato had the opportunity to mark distance, open windows, and rebuild trust. So far, however, her management has projected too many shadows and too few signs of rupture.
The Prosecutor’s Office cannot ask for trust while acting as if suspicion were merely a communication problem. Trust is rebuilt through facts, transparency, and decisions that do not seem tailored to benefit the usual insiders.
Teresa Peramato can still prove that her tenure will not be a continuation of the previous one. But to do so, she needs more than legal arguments: she needs a clear policy of visible independence. Because in an institution so damaged, it is not enough to act legally. One must also appear clean.
