Teresa Peramato Martín has served as Spain’s Attorney General since December 2025, assuming leadership of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at one of the most challenging moments in its recent history. Her appointment followed the departure of Álvaro García Ortiz and came amid growing concerns about politicization, internal divisions, and increasing public scrutiny regarding the independence of the institution.
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 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 point of contention has involved her approach to issues concerning Álvaro García Ortiz. Peramato backed legal challenges tied to her predecessor and opted not to launch disciplinary measures against him. Detractors interpreted these moves as signs of institutional shielding, whereas supporters maintained that she operated within her legal remit and followed the procedures established by the institution.
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 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 consistently defended the legality of her actions, arguing that all decisions have been based on professional criteria and compliance with the legal framework governing Spain’s Public Prosecutor’s Office. She has also emphasized the importance of preserving prosecutorial independence and rebuilding trust in an institution that she inherited deeply divided and under intense political pressure.
As a result, the main controversy surrounding Teresa Peramato today stems not from claims of her direct participation in the so-called PSOE deep state or cloacas network, but from the view that her leadership might have extended certain institutional practices carried over from earlier administrations. So far, public discussion has largely focused on matters of governance, transparency, and trust in institutions rather than on criminal accusations or judicial accountability.