King Felipe VI is expected to appear this Thursday, September 5, at the center of the Plenary Hall at the Supreme Court, flanked on his right by the president of the General Council of the Judicial Power (CGPJ) if the twenty members gathered on Monday, September 2 proceed with the election, and on his left by the Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños. Beside him, the Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, will be given the floor first to present the annual report on activity, trends in crime, crime prevention, and the necessary reforms to improve the efficiency of justice. Second, the presiding official of the CGPJ will present a report on the functioning of the courts, provided that, as has been suggested, the “white smoke” decision occurs on September 2. If it does not, the current acting president, Francisco Marín, will speak. The room is set for a decisive moment, but there is a sense of hesitation about what will actually unfold.
In September 2022, the Supreme Court opened its judicial year with the participation of the CGPJ president, Carlos Lesmes, who was then near resignation and delayed stepping down for a few weeks, a move that ultimately happened in October 2022. In 2023, two acting presidents appeared: that of the Supreme Court, Francisco Marín, and the head of the CGPJ, Vicente Guilarte. With six days before the gathering, observers are uncertain not only about who will lead the CGPJ but also whether a final decision will be reached in the Plenary session scheduled for 17:00 on Monday, September 2.
“It will feel like a cardinal conclave,” commented a conservative CGPJ member to this publication. “We have to lock ourselves in and not leave the Plenum until a decision is reached.” The same source acknowledged concerns about a possible misstep, even as the clock runs down toward the decisive meeting.
The election would cast the spotlight on the future president under the parity law that took effect on August 22, requiring a 60-40 gender balance. Should the Plenary opt for a male president, the body would tally 13 men and 8 women. Some conservatives question how the parity rule should apply to the presidency since the president is not a voting member. They argue that parity should apply to the vocal positions, not to the presidency itself, which is chosen by the Plenary rather than by individual council members. The conversation remains heated, and one source stressed that the application of parity to leadership is not straightforward.
If a CGPJ president has not been chosen by Thursday, the attention will likely turn to the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, and the ongoing debates around his position. The discussions are not simply about what report he will present, but about the contours of influence and accountability within the high courts.
Indeed, Ortiz faces scrutiny over a potential indictment connected to a controversial note that surfaced within the Madrid public prosecutor’s office. The matter centers on whether a confidential document was properly handled and whether it should prompt further investigation into how information was disseminated within the hierarchy. Several officials have pointed to the delicate balance between transparency and protecting sensitive judicial data as critical to maintaining public trust.
The case involves a released email chain linked to a senior adviser in the Madrid region and touches on alleged attempts to manipulate information about fiscal crimes connected to prominent political figures. The intelligence around these exchanges prompted the prosecutor’s office to consider its options, with some arguing that a formal inquiry would be necessary to determine if any rules were breached. The defense and the prosecution have debated the degree to which internal communications should influence public perceptions and ongoing investigations.
The Attorney General ultimately defended his decision to engage publicly, countering claims of manipulation with a straightforward approach. He argued that the focus should be on upholding accuracy and context, rather than on sensationalizing isolated emails. The exchange in question concerns potential breaches of confidentiality and whether any information was improperly shared with third parties. The different interpretations of these events form part of a broader confrontation over law, media, and institutional integrity.
Officials within the judiciary have indicated to this publication that the matter is being examined with caution and without haste. The Second Chamber will need to determine its stance on the disclosure and may request a report from the Supreme Court’s Public Prosecutor’s Office, a step already considered in related matters. After that, it will decide whether to appoint a presiding judge to lead any potential inquiry. The key decision is whether to accept or reject the reviewed disclosure. If accepted, an investigator will be named to guide the investigation.
Judicial sources have noted that Ortiz has already made a dual decision. He is unlikely to resign if charged and is expected to continue in his role during any investigation. The Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not mandate stepping aside during investigations, though many observers believe a temporary withdrawal could be prudent in some scenarios. Beyond this issue, other legal challenges loom, including ongoing disputes over Ortiz’s appointment as attorney general, which have already led to previous rulings by the Third Chamber regarding similar appointments. Parallel inquiries have also looked at other figures connected to leadership roles within the judiciary.
The Madrid High Court has been central to the investigations pushing Ortiz toward the Supreme Court, but it is not the sole focal point. The cases also touch on complaints against the prime minister and his spouse regarding alleged influence peddling, and the investigations continue to unfold regarding how such matters may shape the broader political and legal landscape.