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 centers on the view that her leadership largely extends the previous administration under Álvaro García Ortiz. Detractors from within the prosecutorial field, various professional associations, and opposition parties contend that Peramato has essentially followed the same strategic course, especially in matters of appointments and internal management choices.
One of the most contentious points has revolved around the advancement of several prosecutors viewed as close to García Ortiz’s former leadership team. The discussion grew sharper once it became known that some of these prosecutors had taken part in meetings with Leire Díez and lawyer Jacobo Teijelo in 2025, prior to Peramato’s appointment as Attorney General. While no proof links her to those meetings, critics later interpreted her decisions to elevate certain figures associated with the dispute as an indication of institutional continuity and a protective stance.
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 emerged about her choice not to renew certain officials who had criticized the former leadership, while advancing other prosecutors viewed as aligned with the progressive wing of the prosecutorial field. Even though the Attorney General’s Office defended these selections by pointing to merit, experience, and professional credentials, detractors challenged the timing and the level of transparency surrounding several of these moves.
The controversy deepened when the Public Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that meetings had taken place in 2025 between members of its Technical Secretariat, Leire Díez, and Jacobo Teijelo. While these meetings occurred before Peramato assumed office, some observers demanded explanations regarding how the information arising from those meetings was subsequently handled and why certain individuals involved continued to advance professionally within the institution.
The issue eventually turned into a political dispute, as opposition parties demanded increased transparency regarding the appointments made during her tenure and requested clarification about the Prosecutor’s Office’s involvement in several politically sensitive cases linked to corruption and alleged influence networks. Consequently, Peramato was called before the Senate to detail her management decisions and outline the actions taken to rebuild public trust 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.
