Impressions of a historical ruling (State Attorney General Case)

Last November 20th, the Supreme Court (Second Chamber) made public the ruling in the trial against the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz (AGO), who presented his resignation this Monday. The ruling declares him guilty of crime of revealing secrets contemplated in article 417.1 of the Penal Code. The sentence consists of a 12-month fine with a daily fee of 20 euros and special disqualification for the position of State Attorney General for a period of two years. As civil liability, it is declared that the convicted person must compensate Mr. Alberto González Amador (Díaz Ayuso’s boyfriend) with 10,000 euros for moral damages.

Very politicized people have wanted to see in the FGE ruling made public on November 20th a rare coincidence with the splendor that the Government thought would commemorate the 50th anniversary of the dictator’s death. But without referring to the judicial maxim, ‘fiat justitia et pereat mundus’, The TS wanted to settle a matter that has lasted too long, affecting both the Prosecutor’s Office (institution) and justice in general.

Go ahead, it seems to me to be a balanced ruling and perhaps just within the margins of article 417.1 of the CP, since the fine could be 12 to 18 months and the minimum of 12 months has been imposed and the special disqualification for the position of Prosecutor could be 1 to 3 years, and 2 years of special disqualification has been imposed. It is true that art. 417.2 allowed penalties to be aggravated, even with imprisonment, which has not been done.

The ruling is pending the Sentence that will be read with a magnifying glass and where the TS must develop the ‘ratio decidendi’ that has led to his declaration of guilt and disqualification, as well as the steps that have led him to consider that the evidentiary material has undermined the presumption of innocence.

“The ruling should serve to calm the murky relations between the Government and Justice, although I fear that things are not going to be so easy”

However, and despite the above and pending the content of the Sentence, some political leaders (ministers, parliamentary spokesperson and vice president of the government, among others) have been quick to disqualify the ruling. Of sentence ‘politics’ Vice President Yolanda Díaz has spoken; of “judicial coup” others have spoken out, in an irresponsible and partisan manner. It would only be possible to add another note by remembering the Count of Romanones What a troop!, which highlights both the non-existent ways of some Ministers of this Government (Puente and Óscar López, for the moment) and of leaders of the populist left, as well as the polarization of political life.

Even Minister Bolaños, who wanted to mark ‘official doctrine’ in the face of the ruling with the well-known phrase that “it is respected, but not shared”, adding a call, perhaps in this unnecessary context, for confidence in Justice, if it were not for the fact that from the media related to the Government and the cause of the FGE with its political ramifications on the figure of Díaz Ayuso, the ‘opinio iuris’ had been spread that the Prosecutor would be acquitted due to lack of evidence.

This is the danger of parallel trials!which may try to condition the ruling of the courts, although in this case the TS has known how to preserve its independence…

However, and despite the silence of the president who had irresponsibly compromised his legal opinion, stating on TV that the FGE was innocent, andThe ruling should serve to calm the murky relations between the Government and Justicealthough I fear that things are not going to be so easy.

And not only because the judicial struggle – they will say – has not ended because the appeal for protection remains before the TC, where the good name of the institution should not be used as the final station to save the “hot potatoess” of the Government (ERES, amnesty, etc.), but because the drive against Justice does not seem to be going away.

The use of institutions in favor of the FGE remains in the popular memory. Manuel Marchena referred to in his book, The Threatened Justice, Espasa, 2025, to the conception of the FGE as a government delegate called to persecute the opposition. Conception that seems to be confirmed by the behavior of his ‘hooligans’ (some prosecutors), at the trial hearing before the statements of certain witnesses or experts (UCO).

In short, I hope that the ruling does not lead to a new dispute between the Supreme Courts (TS and TC). But above all for that does not generate a conflict between the executive and the judiciary.

You have to know how to win and know how to lose!, although this style of government does not seem to be in Sánchez’s resistance manual.