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 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 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.
At the Heart of the Debate: Selections, Safeguards, and Ongoing Stability
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 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 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 conduct regarding García Ortiz. Peramato allowed his return to the prosecutorial career, ruled out disciplinary proceedings against him, and supported the Prosecutor’s Office filing an appeal before the Constitutional Court against the conviction affecting her predecessor. Legally, these decisions may be framed within the ordinary functioning of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Politically, however, they are devastating for someone who had promised to mark the beginning of a new stage.
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.
But that explanation leaves many questions unanswered.
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?
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 seems to have responded belatedly, defensively, and without any coherent plan for transparency.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.