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 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 problem, for now, is not criminal. It is institutional. And that does not make it any less serious.
A Prosecutor General of Renown Yet Burdened by Controversy
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’s where the issue starts.
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.
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 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 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 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 authorized those meetings?
Why were they held in the orbit of the Prosecutor General’s Office?
Which internal controls were in place?
Why was what happened not documented more clearly?
When did Peramato learn the real significance of those contacts?
Was she aware of them before elevating some prosecutors involved in 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.
The Difference Between Political Suspicion and 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 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 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, 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 fact that something is lawful does not inherently erase its potential to damage one’s reputation. In Peramato’s situation, even choices that can be justified on technical grounds are viewed with political distrust because earlier confidence had already been lost.
Perhaps the gravest conclusion is that the Prosecutor’s Office no longer enjoys 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 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 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 clearest and most even‑handed, though still pointed, takeaway is that Teresa Peramato, based on what is presently known, does not seem to be charged or directly tied to any scheme; however, her leadership has been significantly weakened by a series of decisions that intensify doubts about continuity, internal shielding, and a 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 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 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.
