On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court (TS) issued for the first time a sentence against a state prosecutor general, by finding Álvaro García Ortiz guilty of a crime of disclosure of secrets to the detriment of businessman Alberto González Amador. Twelve months later, the Executive has on the table its possible pardon "on the table," and the Constitutional Court (TC) has postponed the review of its amparo appeal until after the general elections of November 29.
On that November 20, the Supreme Court only advanced the ruling, which set for García Ortiz two years of disqualification from the post, a fine of 7,200 euros, and compensation of 10,000 euros in favor of the businessman, while the full resolution, with the legal reasoning, was not made public until December 9. The decision was adopted with the dissenting vote of the magistrates Ana Ferrer and Susana Polo, and the mere dissemination of the verdict precipitated the resignation of the head of the Ministry of the Public Prosecutor, appointed in August 2022.
Although he complied with the conviction and, in his letter of resignation, highlighted his "profound respect for judicial rulings," in both his statements and the appeals filed García Ortiz has maintained his innocence, a position shared by the Government and the progressive sector of Parliament. The most recent episode in the Supreme Court occurred about two weeks ago, when the court rejected the challenge by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney's Office, which saw Alberto González Amador's lawyer's fees as "excessive"—then the partner of Madrid's president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso—and confirmed that the former prosecutor general pays 39,000 euros in costs.
Amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court
The State Attorney's Office, which assumed the defense of García Ortiz at the trial, filed in April an amparo appeal with the TC so that the Supreme Court's conviction would be set aside. In its brief, it requested that "the nullity of the judgment" and the "violation" of fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection, freedom of expression, or the right not to testify against oneself be declared.
The resource maintains that in the actions of the then attorney general "there existed a legitimate institutional purpose: to refute confusing, contradictory and distorted information and to defend the actions of the Prosecution Service and the participating prosecutors in a matter of great public interest, refuting the serious accusations that had been publicly made against it." In the opinion of the Bar Association, the Supreme Court made in the judgment an "irrational and arbitrary assessment of the evidence" and based "the attribution of authorship on mere open inferences, omitting exculpatory evidence" as "the testimony of the journalists who explicitly state that the attorney general is not their source."
"It is arbitrary in finding proven that the leak occurred with direct involvement, or through a third party, but with full knowledge and acceptance" by García Ortiz, "since there is no authentic evidence nor sufficient logical reasoning to attribute that knowledge or acceptance to him if the disclosure had come from another person from his surroundings," they added. The Prosecution Service, which at trial in the Supreme Court opted for his acquittal, also urged the Constitutional Court to overturn the judgment for violating, among others, its rights to a process with all guarantees, to know the charges and to defend itself against them, as well as the principle of criminal legality.
Legal sources cited by Europa Press indicate that the appeals remain pending until the body of guarantees sets a date to decide on their admission for processing and they take it for granted that the matter will not move until after the general elections.
The pardon, under processing in Justice
The Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts began in January the processing of a possible pardon in favor of García Ortiz, as a result of two requests filed by private individuals. The regulations allow convicted persons, family members or any person on their behalf to request the act of grace, which must be informed by the sentencing court -- in this case the Supreme Court --, with the Prosecution Service and the injured party being heard.
The high court has already ruled against a pardon, by not finding reasons of justice, equity, or public utility: "The facts were serious; they have produced an important impact on the institutional framework of the public prosecutor's office due to the relevance of its function as a promoter of justice, guarantor of judicial independence and of the exercise of citizens' rights in accordance with legality". If the matter were to finally succeed, the granting of the pardon would correspond to the King, on a proposal from the Minister of Justice and after deliberation by the Council of Ministers, by means of a royal decree published in the Official State Gazette (BOE).
The head of Justice, Félix Bolaños, explained in a recent interview that the department already has the complete file to decide on the possible pardon of the former chief public prosecutor. "Perhaps I am the least suitable person to talk about this matter because precisely I have the matter on my desk," he pointed out, before specifying that "all the necessary procedures have already been completed" so that he can submit a proposal to the Council of Ministers.
This Friday, Bolaños again referred to the case, admitting that, although the file "has a public interest and a special media interest," he will not do "something different" from what he does "with any file, which is not to comment on it." "Neither decision is ruled out. The file is being processed, and on the day it is resolved, surely we will give an account publicly before a press conference like this one we are holding today and we will explain what the decision is and what the reasons are," he said.
García Ortiz’s situation in the prosecutorial career
After the conviction, uncertainty arose about García Ortiz’s future in the Ministry of Public Prosecution. Article 46 of the Organic Statute of the Ministry of Public Prosecution (EOMF) and the Regulations of the Ministry of Public Prosecution provide for the loss of the status of prosecutor when a "principal or ancillary penalty of disqualification for public office" is imposed, or a conviction for an intentional offense.
In January, the Prosecutor's Office—now headed by Teresa Peramato—communicated that it authorized García Ortiz to continue in the prosecutorial career, by understanding that the two-year disqualification for the disclosure of secrets only affected the position of State chief public prosecutor and not the rest of the functions. In this way, the former head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office joined the Supreme Court’s Social Division.
His arrival at that section of the high court took place “in accordance with the statutory provisions, with his previous situation of special services becoming null and void” when he held the position of Attorney General, according to sources from the Public Prosecutor’s Office. From the institution they stressed that “the scope of the judgment in the sentence is clearly delimited.” They recalled that the Supreme resolution “imposes on García Ortiz the penalty of special disqualification for the position of Attorney General of the State for a period of two years, without any further reference being made either regarding his status as a career prosecutor and/or the exercise of his prosecutorial functions, or regarding other analogous positions.”