The Government has quickly and clearly decided to replace Álvaro García Ortiz as head of the State Attorney General’s Office, convicted – although still without conviction – of having revealed personal data by the Supreme Court. The election of Teresa Peramato – chief prosecutor of the Criminal Section of the High Court, with a solid profile, prestige, vast experience and no partisan controversies behind her – is an appropriate bet to give stability to the Public Prosecutor after months in which the controversial judicial case against García Ortiz has placed the institution at the center of the political and judicial debate, opening cracks that are difficult to fill.
The appointment of a solvent figure away from the spotlight means sending a message of serenity which is particularly precious at this moment. Teresa Peramato is a highly respected jurist, with a 35-year career in the tax field and specialized for decades in sexist violence against women and minors. The reaction of the first opposition party reveals the correctness of the choice: even in a moment of maximum tension like the current one, the PP has expressed caution since the recognition of Peramato’s “exemplary” curriculum, which will now have to go through the non-binding report of the General Council of the Judiciary and an appearance in Congress.
Meanwhile, all eyes remain on the Supreme Court. The wait for the sentence has left García Ortiz in an extremely anomalous situation, without the possibility of defending himself from the virulent attacks of an opposition that defines him as a “criminal”. The state’s still attorney general knows he has been convicted, but he knows neither the reasons nor the facts for which he was convicted. Was the leak of the email from the lawyer of Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner addressed to the Prosecutor’s Office acknowledging the tax fraud and asking to negotiate? The note that the Prosecutor’s Office then issued to deny a hoax spread by the Madrid president’s entourage? Everything at once?
This void should not have occurred. When a sentence is pronounced without publishing the reasons – which is how the courts of justice express themselves – the debate stops being legal and becomes political or media-based. In this procedure, more than in any other, precision and maximum rigor were required, not progress. If leaks of information were feared, the matter was simple: it was enough for the seven magistrates to remain silent during the drafting of the sentence, especially when what was being judged was indeed a leak of information. It was they who had the duty to maintain and ensure that the confidentiality necessary to maintain the rights of the convicted person was intact.
García Ortiz quickly submitted his resignation so that an already unsustainable institutional situation is not prolonged and we can turn the page on this episode, which has created so many divisions. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to act with equal speed by making known the reasons for the conviction – as well as the dissenting vote of the two dissenting judges – in a case that affects one of the state’s highest institutions. The return to institutional normality is imperative. In this direction, meanwhile, the appointment of Teresa Peramato by the Government is a right and timely decision.
