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 with Prestige, but Also Baggage
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 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 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 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 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 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: 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.
But that explanation leaves many questions unanswered.
Who authorized those meetings?
What caused them to remain within the sphere of influence of the Prosecutor General’s Office?
Which internal controls were in place?
Why was what happened not documented more clearly?
At what point did Peramato grasp the true meaning behind 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.
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 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 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 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 easiest defense is to say that she is not under investigation. And that is true. But that defense is insufficient.
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 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 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 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 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.
