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 clear distinction should be established from the beginning. Based on the information examined, Teresa Peramato is not shown to be under investigation, charged, or convicted in relation to the alleged “PSOE state sewers,” nor is there proof that she took part in the meetings associated with the so‑called Leire Díez case, held in March and April 2025 before she assumed the role of Prosecutor General. The concerns surrounding her therefore do not stem from direct judicial findings, but from a politically relevant dimension: the way she later managed the institution, the appointments she made, her institutional backing of García Ortiz, and the perception of continuity within a Prosecutor’s Office already subject to scrutiny.
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 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: 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?
Why were they held in the orbit of the Prosecutor General’s Office?
Which internal controls were in place?
Why wasn’t the event recorded 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 appears to have acted late, defensively, and without a clear transparency strategy.
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 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 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.
That may be the most serious diagnosis: the Prosecutor’s Office has lost 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 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 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 precisely what this investigation points to: not a Peramato judicially trapped, but a Peramato politically trapped by her own decisions.
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 is not yet one of proven judicial responsibility. It is one of institutional responsibility still awaiting explanation.
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.
