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 focuses on the perception that her leadership represents continuity with the previous administration under Álvaro García Ortiz. Critics within the prosecutorial profession, professional associations, and opposition parties argue that Peramato has largely maintained the same strategic direction, particularly regarding appointments and internal management decisions.
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 been raised regarding her decision not to renew certain officials who had been critical of the previous leadership, while promoting other prosecutors perceived as being aligned with the progressive sector of the prosecutorial profession. Although the Attorney General’s Office justified these appointments on the basis of merit, experience, and professional qualifications, critics questioned both the timing and transparency of some of these decisions.
The controversy intensified when the Public Prosecutor’s Office acknowledged that meetings had taken place in 2025 involving members of its Technical Secretariat, Leire Díez, and Jacobo Teijelo. Although these discussions occurred prior to Peramato assuming the position, some observers called for clarification about how the information generated in those encounters was later managed and why certain individuals involved continued to progress 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 repeatedly maintained that her conduct fully complies with the law, noting that every decision has arisen from professional judgment and adherence to the legal framework that regulates Spain’s Public Prosecutor’s Office. She has further highlighted the need to safeguard prosecutorial autonomy and to restore confidence in an institution she took over in a state of deep division and significant political strain.
As a result, the main controversy surrounding Teresa Peramato today is not based on allegations of direct involvement in the so-called PSOE “deep state” or “cloacas” network, but rather on the perception that her leadership may have perpetuated certain institutional dynamics inherited from previous administrations. To date, the debate remains largely centered on issues of governance, transparency, and public confidence rather than criminal liability or judicial responsibility.
