The Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, has lodged a complaint with the President of the General Council of the Judiciary, María Isabel Perelló, regarding the content of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado's order in which he withdraws Begoña Gómez's passport and questions the actions of the police officers escorting her.
As reported by El País, Marlaska considers it of "utmost gravity" that a judicial resolution uses the possibility that agents of the State Security Forces and Corps, or their superiors, could collaborate in an eventual escape of the wife of the President of the Government as an argument.
The complaint comes after Peinado ordered the opening of oral proceedings against Begoña Gómez and her advisor, Cristina Álvarez, and imposed precautionary measures on them: withdrawal of passport, prohibition from leaving Spain, and periodic appearances at the court.
Peinado's Argument That Has Provoked the Complaint
The central point of the controversy lies in the justification of the flight risk.
Begoña Gómez's defense had argued that her status as the wife of the President of the Government and the fact that she was accompanied by police escorts made it practically impossible for her to evade justice.
Peinado rejected that argument. In his ruling, the judge suggests that these agents would not necessarily prevent an escape and implies that, at a certain point, they could collaborate with her, either on their own initiative or following superior instructions.
This statement has provoked the immediate rejection of the Ministry of the Interior and several police unions, who consider that the magistrate is questioning the professionalism and legality of the agents without basis.
Marlaska Speaks of a Serious Questioning of the Police
Marlaska avoids delving into the substance of the judicial ruling, but he does criticize the reasoning that affects the escorts.
The Ministry of the Interior maintains that this passage of the order affects not only the specific police officers assigned to Begoña Gómez's protection service but also their hierarchical superiors and the Ministry of the Interior itself.
The minister considers that implying that public agents could facilitate illegal conduct constitutes an attack on the integrity of police action. That is why he has conveyed the complaint to Perelló so that the CGPJ can assess whether to adopt any measures within its powers.
What the Ministry of the Interior Asks of the CGPJ
Marlaska's complaint is not an appeal against the precautionary measures imposed on Begoña Gómez. That avenue is for her defense.
What the Interior Ministry is doing is bringing to the attention of the governing body of judges some statements that, in the Ministry's opinion, damage the image and professionalism of the State Security Forces and Corps.
The minister asks that the CGPJ adopt, if applicable, the measures that may be appropriate. The response will depend on the extent to which the judicial body addresses the complaint and whether it considers that the words in the order may have disciplinary or institutional relevance.
Police unions also criticize Peinado
The reaction has not been limited to the Government. Several police unions have harshly rejected the insinuation that Begoña Gómez's bodyguards could collaborate in an escape.
Jupol called the statement a "barbarity." The Unified Police Union considered it particularly worrying. The Federal Union of Police and the Spanish Confederation of Police also defended the professionalism of the agents and demanded respect for their work.
The criticism shared by the unions is that bodyguards act under criteria of legality, neutrality, and professionalism, and that linking them to possible irregular conduct damages public trust in the Police.
Begoña Gómez's passport withdrawal
The controversy arises from the order by which Peinado sends Begoña Gómez and Cristina Álvarez to trial.
The judge has imposed the withdrawal of all passports, the prohibition of leaving national territory, and the obligation to appear periodically at the court.
The measures respond to the request of the popular accusers, who had alleged a flight risk. The Public Prosecutor's Office, on the other hand, has opposed several steps taken by the magistrate during the investigation and has defended the dismissal of the case.
A new institutional clash in the Begoña Gómez case
Marlaska's complaint adds another chapter to the confrontation between the Government and Judge Peinado.
The Begoña Gómez case has accumulated months of political tension, appeals, criticism from the Public Prosecutor's Office, complaints to the CGPJ, and public responses from the Executive. The decision to open oral proceedings and withdraw the passport now elevates the conflict to a new phase.
The novelty is that this time the controversy is not focused solely on Begoña Gómez or the Prime Minister, but on the role of police bodyguards and the institutional image of the State Security Forces and Corps.
What can happen now
Begoña Gómez's defense has already announced that it will appeal the precautionary measures imposed by Peinado, including the withdrawal of her passport.
In parallel, the CGPJ must decide what course of action to take on the complaint filed by Marlaska. The governing body of judges can dismiss the complaint, open informational proceedings, or forward it to the promoter of disciplinary action if it finds indications of relevance.