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 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’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.
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 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: 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 approved those meetings?
What caused them to remain within the sphere of influence of the Prosecutor General’s Office?
What internal controls existed?
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 appears to have acted late, defensively, and without a clear transparency strategy.
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 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.
That may be the most serious diagnosis: the Prosecutor’s Office has lost the benefit of the doubt.
A Fractured Institution
Another relevant element is the internal state of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Elections to the Prosecutorial Council showed that the critical sector remains strong. This does not automatically amount to a personal censure of Peramato, but it does confirm that the internal fracture continues.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
