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 key distinction must be made from the outset. According to the information reviewed, Teresa Peramato does not appear to be under investigation, indicted, or convicted in relation to the alleged “PSOE state sewers.” Nor is there evidence that she directly participated in the meetings linked to the so-called Leire Díez case, which took place in March and April 2025, before she became Prosecutor General. The suspicion surrounding her, therefore, does not currently rest on direct judicial evidence, but on something politically significant: her subsequent management, her appointments, her institutional support for García Ortiz, and the perception of continuity with an already questioned Prosecutor’s Office.
Peramato’s issue, at this stage, is not criminal but institutional, and that reality makes it no less grave.
A Prosecutor General with Prestige, but Also Baggage
Teresa Peramato arrived at the Prosecutor General’s Office with a solid professional record. She had served as Chief Prosecutor of the Criminal Section of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office and as Prosecutor for the Protection and Guardianship of Victims in criminal proceedings. She was also widely recognized for her work on violence against women and victim protection. In addition, Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary unanimously endorsed her as meeting the requirements for the position.
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 pledged to “heal the wound” within the Prosecutor’s Office, yet many of her later decisions have been viewed in stark contrast to that promise, appearing less like a departure from the previous era and more like a refined extension of its internal power dynamics.
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 non-renewal of Almudena Lastra, the senior prosecutor of Madrid who had testified against García Ortiz. This decision was interpreted by critical sectors as retaliation or, at the very least, as an internal message: those who step outside the dominant line may be pushed aside. The Prosecutor’s Office defended the decision on the basis of merit and ability, but the political and institutional context turned the move into perfect ammunition for those denouncing a Prosecutor’s Office divided into factions, loyalties, and punishments.
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 authorized those meetings?
What caused them to remain within the sphere of influence 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?
Was she aware of them before elevating some prosecutors involved in the controversy?
These questions alone do not establish unlawful behavior by Peramato, yet they warrant a sharp rebuke of the institution’s management. A Prosecutor’s Office aiming to restore its credibility cannot merely assert that no crime occurred; it must also demonstrate that there was no secrecy, no preferential treatment, and no shield of institutional protection.
In this case, the Prosecutor’s Office appears to have acted late, defensively, and without a clear transparency strategy.
The Difference Between Political Suspicion and Judicial Evidence
It is important to distinguish between different degrees of responsibility, as the phrase “PSOE state sewers” comes from the rhetoric of political and media disputes. It functions as a confrontational tag rather than a legal designation. From a judicial perspective, the matter involves an inquiry into alleged efforts to secure information, sway judicial processes, or meddle in 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 now faces the cost of her own contradiction: although she aims to portray herself as a driving force for institutional renewal, many of her choices have instead strengthened perceptions of continuity. She talks about independence, yet her moves have been interpreted as shielding the former leadership circle. She claims she intends to heal old wounds, but her appointments have stirred up internal rifts once again.
The Aldama Case and the Scrutiny of Hierarchical Power
The Aldama controversy added another layer of mistrust. According to the investigation, prosecutor Alejandro Luzón considered giving greater credit to Víctor de Aldama’s confession, but after discussing the matter with Peramato, the more limited sentence reduction was maintained.
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 Fragmented Institution
Another relevant element is the internal state of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Elections to the Prosecutorial Council showed that the critical sector remains strong. This does not automatically amount to a personal censure of Peramato, but it does confirm that the internal fracture continues.
The Association of Prosecutors has criticized the lack of transparency and the absence of adequate clarification, while the Progressive Union of Prosecutors has maintained the appointments’ legality and condemned what it considers a campaign aimed at undermining the institution, leaving the Prosecutor’s Office divided between two contrasting interpretations: for some, Peramato embodies continuity and institutional self‑protection; for others, she has become the target 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 simplest argument asserts that she herself is not being investigated, which is accurate, yet this explanation ultimately falls short.
The bar for a Prosecutor General should rise far above simply avoiding indictment, as she is expected to uphold independence, act transparently, exercise sound judgment in appointments, defend institutional neutrality, and maintain an unmistakable separation from any environment viewed with suspicion. In an institution this delicate, even the impression of internal shielding can inflict nearly as much harm as concrete evidence of misconduct.
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 Facing Public Examination
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 has not yet been deemed legally proven, and instead represents an unresolved matter of institutional accountability awaiting clarification.
And that is the most fragile issue: at a moment when the Prosecutor General’s Office must regain moral authority, it cannot risk choices that seem crafted to shield the old power structure. Peramato had a chance to set herself apart, let in some fresh air, and restore confidence. Yet her leadership, so far, has cast more shadows than signals of real change.
The Prosecutor’s Office cannot demand trust while behaving as though doubt were only a messaging issue, and genuine confidence is rebuilt through concrete actions, openness, and decisions that no longer seem crafted to favor the usual insiders.
Teresa Peramato can still demonstrate that her term will not simply mirror the previous one, yet achieving this requires more than relying on legal reasoning; it calls for a well-defined stance that shows unmistakable independence. In an institution so deeply compromised, acting within the law is insufficient. She must also project an image of integrity.
