The State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, experienced one of the most complicated days on Thursday since he became head of the Public Ministry. A day after the Supreme Court opened a case against him, he convened the race’s two most important advisory bodies to explain to their members why he believes he should remain in office and listen to their considerations. The two meetings, held in a friendly tone, showed the division of the institution, with voices favorable and critical of its decision. The latter, defended by the most conservative sectors of the race, have been very bellicose with García Ortiz practically since he was named supreme representative of the Public Ministry.
In the morning, the Prosecutor General saved the process of the College of Prosecutors Chamber, where members of the highest career category are represented. Among the thirty participants, eight – including the four who made the accusation during the proceedings – expressly declared that the most appropriate thing would be their resignation to safeguard the image and credibility of the institution. In addition, three other interventions led to confusion, with appeals to the complicated situation to which this matter leads to the race; and a dozen speakers unequivocally supported García Ortiz.
At the Fiscal Council in the afternoon, there were no surprises: a majority expressed their disagreement with García Ortiz’s decision to continue leading the Prosecutor’s Office. This body, which advises the Attorney General, is dominated by conservative associations which had already publicly demanded his resignation just hours after the Supreme Court opened a trial against him for the alleged leak of certain emails between Alberto’s lawyer , González Amador, partner of Madrid President Isabel Díaz Ayuso, and the prosecutor who is investigating him for having defrauded 350,000 euros.
In his interventions, García Ortiz insisted that neither he nor his entourage have disclosed any emails and that, therefore, he is convinced that the file will end up being archived, therefore maintaining his position is the least expensive and the most prudent for the institution. medium and long term. He also defended that one of the functions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office was to report on relevant issues to guarantee the right of citizens to receive truthful information and that the press release, for which he was publicly responsible, was to justify the role of the public prosecutor against the dissemination of a “hoax”.
This thesis was supported by a dozen House prosecutors who spoke at the morning meeting. Among these voices were those who warned of the bad “precedent” that his resignation could create, given that any more or less well-argued complaint would be enough to dismiss an entire attorney general. And there are even those who spoke of a “whim” of the Criminal Chamber, referring to the order which, unanimously, agreed to investigate the alleged leak of these emails, even if, for At the moment, there is not even a shadow of responsibility on the part of the court. Attorney General.
Faced with these positions, there were other ambiguous interventions, more focused on the consequences that this investigation could have for the institution than on the decision of the Attorney General. For example, the head of the anti-corruption prosecution, Alejandro Luzón, was less optimistic about the limited scope that the cause predicted by the attorney general and his entourage could have and warned that the scenario could become more complicated depending on its evolution. the investigation.
Among Sala’s prosecutors there is a group, composed mainly of experienced prosecutors, who have maintained an open confrontation with García Ortiz practically since his arrival at the head of the Public Ministry. They are essentially the same ones who took a position in favor of an investigation into the complaint of the businessman González Amador and which resulted in the opening of a trial against García Ortiz or who rejected the request for amnesty to Carles Puigdemont.
This group is led by the four prosecutors in the trial -Javier Zaragoza, Consuelo Madrigal, Fidel Cadena and Jaime Moreno-, who defended on Thursday the most critical positions in the face of the Attorney General’s decision. And they expressed their deep concern about the consequences of this investigation on the image and credibility of the institution. Other high-profile figures have also joined the position, such as computer crimes prosecutor Elvira Tejada; and Supreme Court prosecutors Antonio Narváez, José Javier Huete and José Miguel de la Rosa.
Criticism of the Budget Council
In the afternoon, García Ortiz had to endure the fact that the six members of the Association of Prosecutors (AF) and that of the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF) – both conservatives – urged him to resign from the Tax Council. At this meeting he only received the support of the two representatives of the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF), to which he was affiliated until his appointment, and the two natural members: the prosecutor’s lieutenant María Ángeles Sánchez-Conde and the inspector prosecutor. María Antonia Sanz Gaite, also related to him.
The Majority Association of Prosecutors has already written in a press release published this Wednesday that García Ortiz should “reconsider” his decision “for the good of the institution”. According to him, his continuity in the position “calls into question the credibility of the actions of all members of the career” beyond this process due to the “principles of hierarchical dependence and unity of action”. For his part, the member of the APIF once again requested his resignation to avoid the “damage” that, according to him, his continuity causes to his career and because he “will defend himself better” by being removed from his functions. .
On the other hand, the UPF also demonstrated on Wednesday its “support” for the actions of the Attorney General and its “total disagreement” with the arguments that led the High Court to make this decision, considering that the facts investigated are unrealistic. not a crime. Likewise, this association expressed its “deep concern about the pressure and attrition” to which the Attorney General and the entire institution are subjected.
