The Supreme Court against the Attorney General... and against journalism

The suspicions of politicization of the justice system in the case against Álvaro García Ortiz have a second, significant victim worth noting: journalism. During the hearings, several journalists explained that the alleged secret revealed by the Attorney General was not actually secret, as the information was circulating in some newsrooms. This is an important detail because there is no direct evidence of a leak, so the prosecution—whoever has already decided on the verdict—has a vested interest in demonstrating that only the defendant possessed this information. It must be borne in mind that these professionals testified as witnesses and are therefore obligated to tell the truth, even though they have the constitutional right not to reveal their sources, protected by the right to journalistic secrecy. Therefore, the contemptuous remarks heard in court are completely out of line. If the judge believes he is being pressured when told that a reporter's source was not García Ortiz, he can open an investigation for perjury. But he should not vent his frustration with statements that have no legal standing whatsoever. It's not just about respecting a citizen who answers the call of justice: the judiciary's respect for the journalistic function is at stake. However imperfect and entrenched it may be, the high magistrates are hardly the most qualified to be giving lectures.

The infighting in recent days, with judges wearing robes and cuffs, indicates a desire to stake out territory that is unfortunately all too common in the Spanish justice system. After witnessing, for some time now, how judges have assumed almost legislative functions, they are now also trying to undermine the so-called fourth estate, which should be able to freely scrutinize them. The Supreme Court urgently needs a democratic revitalization.