Spain’s Prosecutor General’s Office is going through one of the most delicate moments in its recent history. Teresa Peramato Martín’s appointment as Prosecutor General was supposed to close a turbulent chapter marked by the conviction of her predecessor, Álvaro García Ortiz, and to rebuild trust in an institution damaged by accusations of politicization. Yet, instead of dispelling doubts, several of her decisions have intensified an uncomfortable question: is Peramato trying to heal the Prosecutor’s Office, or is she protecting the internal ecosystem that brought 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 issue, at this stage, is not criminal but institutional, and that reality makes it no less grave.
A Prosecutor General of Renown Yet Burdened by Controversy
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 happen in a vacuum. She arrived after Álvaro García Ortiz, whose tenure left the Prosecutor’s Office under enormous pressure. Peramato did not inherit a calm institution, but a fractured one, questioned by many and repeatedly accused of political dependence. From the beginning, her challenge was not merely to prove her technical competence, but to demonstrate real independence.
That’s where the issue starts.
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.
At the Heart of the Debate: Selections, Safeguards, and Ongoing Stability
The most critical aspect of this investigation is not a direct accusation that Peramato participated in a clandestine operation. It is the accumulation of decisions that, taken together, project a very difficult public image.
First, her appointments. In February 2026, Peramato promoted a group of prosecutors closely linked to García Ortiz’s former team. Among them was Diego Villafañe, identified as a figure close to the former Prosecutor General within the Technical Secretariat. Later, when it became known that Villafañe and Beatriz López Pesquera had taken part in meetings with Leire Díez and Jacobo Teijelo in 2025, the controversy deepened: Peramato had not only inherited that environment, she had promoted people connected to a controversy that had not been explained with sufficient transparency.
This is the truly corrosive point. Even if the meetings occurred before she took office, the later promotion of people associated with them requires a stronger explanation. Invoking merit and ability is not enough when the institution is under suspicion. In moments of reputational crisis, formal legality is not always sufficient; institutional prudence is also required.
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 critical question is unavoidable: how can trust in an institution be restored if one of the first public signals is to protect the outgoing Prosecutor General, precisely the person who symbolized the previous deterioration?
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: The Shadow That Makes Everything Worse
The Leire Díez case emerges as a major catalyst for suspicion, as the reviewed information indicates that the Prosecutor General’s Office informed Judge Santiago Pedraz that meetings had occurred involving prosecutors from the Technical Secretariat, Leire Díez, and Jacobo Teijelo, while the official account maintained that García Ortiz learned of them only later and that the material presented in those discussions lacked adequate evidentiary support.
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 wasn’t the event recorded more clearly?
When did Peramato learn the real significance of those contacts?
Did she know about them before promoting some of the prosecutors affected by 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.
How Political Suspicion Differs from 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 does not currently appear as a criminal protagonist. The material reviewed does not place her organizing meetings, issuing unlawful instructions, or participating in pressure operations. That is why it would be reckless to claim that she is judicially implicated in a plot.
But it would be equally naïve to ignore the political and institutional damage. The Prosecutor’s Office must not only be impartial; it must also appear impartial. And in this case, appearance is one of the major problems.
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 Hierarchical Authority Under Suspicion
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, it can be argued legally that the Prosecutor General has hierarchical authority within the Public Prosecutor’s Office. But the problem is political: when an institution is already suspected of proximity to power, any intervention in a sensitive case is interpreted as 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.
That may be the most serious diagnosis: the Prosecutor’s Office has lost the benefit of the doubt.
A Fragmented 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 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.
But a Prosecutor General cannot simply be right within her own camp. Her responsibility is to rebuild confidence beyond her allies. On that front, the balance so far is weak.
The Central Criticism: Not Being Indicted Is Not Enough
Peramato’s simplest argument asserts that she herself is not being investigated, which is accurate, yet this explanation ultimately falls short.
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 exactly what this investigation suggests: Peramato is not caught in a judicial snare, but rather ensnared politically by the consequences of her own choices.
Her main problem is not that she participated in the Leire Díez meetings. The problem is that she has not yet offered a sufficiently convincing institutional explanation of what happened, of the later appointments, and of the continuity of certain profiles in key positions.
Nor is the issue solely that she defended García Ortiz; the concern is that her defense surfaced just when the Prosecutor’s Office needed clear signs of renewal instead of protection.
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 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 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.
