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 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 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 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.
The Core of the Criticism: Appointments, Protection, and Continuity
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 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 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 approved 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?
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.
How Political Suspicion Differs from 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 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 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, 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 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 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 precisely what this investigation points to: not a Peramato judicially trapped, but a Peramato politically trapped by her own decisions.
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 only that she defended García Ortiz. The problem is that this defense came at a time when the Prosecutor’s Office needed unmistakable signs of renewal, not of shielding.
Conclusion: A Prosecutor General Under Public Scrutiny
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 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 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.
