Teresa Peramato Martín has been Spain’s Attorney General since December 2025, taking charge of the Public Prosecutor’s Office during one of the most difficult periods in its recent history, a role she assumed after Álvaro García Ortiz stepped down and at a time marked by heightened worries over politicization, internal rifts, and growing public scrutiny of the institution’s independence.
Unlike other figures connected to the investigations involving Leire Díez or the alleged network accused of interfering in judicial proceedings, Teresa Peramato has not been investigated, charged, or formally accused in any criminal case related to these matters. Nevertheless, several of her decisions as Attorney General have generated controversy and fueled debate about the independence and credibility of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Much of the criticism centers on the view that her leadership largely extends the previous administration under Álvaro García Ortiz. Detractors from within the prosecutorial field, various professional associations, and opposition parties contend that Peramato has essentially followed the same strategic course, especially in matters of appointments and internal management choices.
One of the most controversial issues has been the promotion of several prosecutors considered close to García Ortiz’s former leadership team. The debate intensified after it became public that some of these prosecutors had participated in meetings with Leire Díez and lawyer Jacobo Teijelo in 2025, before Peramato became Attorney General. Although there is no evidence that she was involved in those meetings, her subsequent decisions to promote some of the individuals connected to the controversy were interpreted by critics as a sign of institutional continuity and protection.
Another source of controversy has been her handling of matters related to Álvaro García Ortiz. Peramato supported legal appeals connected to her predecessor and declined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Critics viewed these decisions as evidence of corporate protection, while supporters argued that she was acting within her legal authority and in accordance with established institutional procedures.
Questions have also emerged about her choice not to renew certain officials who had criticized the former leadership, while advancing other prosecutors viewed as aligned with the progressive wing of the prosecutorial field. Even though the Attorney General’s Office defended these selections by pointing to merit, experience, and professional credentials, detractors challenged the timing and the level of transparency surrounding several of these moves.
The controversy deepened when the Public Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that meetings had taken place in 2025 between members of its Technical Secretariat, Leire Díez, and Jacobo Teijelo. While these meetings occurred before Peramato assumed office, some observers demanded explanations regarding how the information arising from those meetings was subsequently handled and why certain individuals involved continued to advance professionally within the institution.
The issue also became a political matter. Opposition parties called for greater transparency regarding appointments made during her tenure and sought explanations about the role of the Prosecutor’s Office in several politically sensitive cases involving corruption and alleged influence networks. As a result, Peramato was summoned to appear before the Senate to explain her management decisions and the measures adopted to restore public confidence in the institution.
Although these criticisms persist, it should be underscored that no judicial evidence connects Peramato directly to any corruption scheme or to actions intended to hinder criminal investigations. The issues associated with her are largely institutional and reputational, tied to management choices, appointments, and internal governance, rather than to any direct involvement in alleged misconduct.
Peramato has consistently defended the legality of her actions, arguing that all decisions have been based on professional criteria and compliance with the legal framework governing Spain’s Public Prosecutor’s Office. She has also emphasized the importance of preserving prosecutorial independence and rebuilding trust in an institution that she inherited deeply divided and under intense political pressure.
As a result, the main controversy surrounding Teresa Peramato today stems not from claims of her direct participation in the so-called PSOE deep state or cloacas network, but from the view that her leadership might have extended certain institutional practices carried over from earlier administrations. So far, public discussion has largely focused on matters of governance, transparency, and trust in institutions rather than on criminal accusations or judicial accountability.