Podcast Summary: "Las 8 de Hoy por Hoy"

SER Podcast | November 21, 2025
Host: Àngels Barceló and team

Overview

This episode of "Hoy por Hoy" centers on the historic Supreme Court ruling against Spain’s Fiscal General del Estado (Attorney General), Álvaro García Ortiz, for the offense of revealing secrets. The discussion explores the implications of the unprecedented verdict: the Supreme Court ignored the exonerating testimonies from journalists, condemned the top prosecutor despite a lack of concrete evidence, and set off a political storm with reactions across Spain's judiciary and governmental landscape. The panel reflects on the broader themes of journalistic integrity, political maneuvering, institutional trust, and the health of Spanish democracy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context and Significance of the Supreme Court Verdict

• The episode opens by underlining the gravity and unprecedented nature of the Supreme Court’s verdict: no Fiscal General had ever before been convicted for revealing secrets. The decision was delivered swiftly, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Franco’s death, adding historical resonance.

• Host Àngels Barceló critiques the verdict, highlighting an absence of direct evidence and the disregard for journalists' testimonies that the Attorney General was not their source.

  "Es una sentencia tan histórica... como sorprendente, se le condena sin que en el juicio se haya evidenciado ninguna prueba que sustente que fue el Fiscal quien filtró el famoso correo... Y ha ganado la mentira reconocida en sede judicial."
  — Anchor, 00:11

• The episode frames the ruling as a triumph of deceit over truth, referencing admissions from government communications director Miguel Ángel Rodríguez about fabricating narratives for political reasons:

  "Dijo Miguel Ángel Rodríguez... que él puede mentir porque no es notario, solo un periodista que hace labores políticas."
  — Anchor, 01:10

• The impact on journalistic integrity is a recurring theme:

  "Es descorazonador para el oficio que aquellos que hacen bien su trabajo... no encuentren en la justicia el acompañamiento indispensable en un Estado de Derecho."
  — Anchor, 01:32

2. How the Fake News Originated and Was Refuted

• Detailed recapitulation of the case: Miguel Ángel Rodríguez spread a false narrative regarding corruption involving Isabel Díaz Ayuso's partner.

• Journalists from Hora 25 and elDiario.es systematically debunked the claims, testifying under oath that the prosecutor was not their source.

  "Este es el origen. La SER desmontó ese bulo... que él vio el contenido de ese correo electrónico antes de que le llegase al fiscal general."
  — Political Analyst, 03:28

  "Incluso negó que llegara a hablar con el fiscal general."
  — Anchor, 03:40

  "Negó también que el fiscal fuera su fuente."
  — Political Analyst, 03:51

3. Judicial Process and Concerns About Press Freedom

• Legal correspondents comment that the Supreme Court’s rapid deliberation (5 votes to 2, with dissent from progressive magistrates) departed from legal norms, especially by announcing the verdict before the sentence was fully written.

• The Court disregarded journalists' testimonies, justifying this by equating their right to protect sources with the caution used for suspects.

  "Los magistrados... adoptan cautelas especiales, igual que se adoptan con los investigados. No son las cautelas normales de un testigo."
  — Political Analyst, 04:44

  "Fallo del Supremo lo conocimos... cinco votos a favor, dos en contra... condena por revelación de secretos a dos años de inhabilitación."
  — Political Analyst, 04:58

4. Immediate and Legal Consequences

• García Ortiz faces two years of disqualification, a €7,000 fine, and must pay €10,000 compensation. His removal is nearly automatic, with only a constitutional appeal possible, which doesn’t delay the sentence.

• The rapid shift in judicial personnel, the speed of the ruling, and background political maneuvering are highlighted as extraordinary and controversial.

  "El cambio de ponente... desencadenó el adelanto del fallo, algo que no es habitual y menos en un caso de esta trascendencia."
  — Legal Expert, 05:23

5. Political and Societal Reactions

Government Response

• The government, described as "incendiada" (inflamed) behind closed doors, publicly moves cautiously, stressing respect for judicial decisions but expressing clear disagreement:

  "El Gobierno tiene el deber legal de respetar el fallo, pero también el deber moral de decir públicamente que no lo compartimos."
  — Government Official, 07:47

  "La discrepancia con esta sentencia no puede conllevar una desconfianza generalizada en las instituciones y particularmente en la Justicia."
  — Government Official, 08:23

Opposition and Right-Wing Response

• The Partido Popular (PP) and Ayuso’s team claim vindication, describing the case as a political persecution and painting the verdict as a victory for democracy:

  "Quieren en Génova dimisión, urnas, pero también disculpas... ¿Quién le va a pedir perdón al fiscal?"
  — Political Analyst, 11:36

  "El fallo es un éxito de la democracia... según ella, en una democracia libre no se pueden utilizar los medios del Estado para hacer política delinquiendo."
  — Political Analyst, 12:39

Critical Voices from Progressive and Peripheral Parties

• Figures from Sumar and Podemos argue the ruling reflects "puro golpismo judicial," a judicial coup attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the government:

  "Estamos ante puro golpismo judicial... de tirar un gobierno legítimo porque no les gusta."
  — Minister Urtasun / Sumar, 13:43

  "Solo puede entenderse como un intento de golpear a cualquiera que cuestione al Sr. Ayuso."
  — Legal Expert, 13:57

Media and Expert Reflections

• Journalistic figures and commentators point to a new era where fabricated narratives can prevail in the courtroom, undermining rule of law and trust in public institutions.

  "Si son capaces de condenar a alguien sin pruebas, qué es lo siguiente... Si la señora Ayuso interpreta que está por encima de la ley... El problema no es mío, el problema de todos."
  — Oscar López, 09:19

6. Broader Societal and Historical Context

• The ruling and associated turmoil occur against the backdrop of the 50th anniversary of Franco’s death and a series of commemorative events. The episode also touches upon the Spanish right’s shifting rhetoric about the Franco regime and historical memory.

• Comments from Ayuso and PP figures blur condemnation of the Franco dictatorship, linking criticism of the present government to past authoritarianism.

  "A la portavoz de los populares en el Senado, Alicia García, le preguntaron... y su salida fue equiparar al Gobierno de Sánchez con la dictadura."
  — Presenter, 14:54

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Miguel Ángel Rodríguez’s admission (about lying):

  "Yo soy periodista o trabajo en política. No soy un notario que necesite una compañía."
  — Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, 03:14

• Host’s lamentation about the state of journalism:

  "Habrá que dejarnos la piel para defendernos de los que han normalizado la mentira..."
  — Anchor, 01:52

• Government’s fury (private vs. public):

  "Nuestra gente está incendiada, decía ayer un miembro del Ejecutivo para describir ese sentimiento de indignación..."
  — Government Official, 07:45

• Oscar López (PSOE) on judicial infallibility:

  "¿Cree usted que los periodistas alguna vez fallan? ¿Los políticos fallan? Por supuesto. ¿Los jueces nunca fallan. Nunca. Es la única profesión del mundo que nunca falla."
  — Oscar López, 10:06

• PP claims political victimization:

  "Parece que el fiscal general del Estado se prestó a ser un peón en la estrategia política del Ejecutivo..."
  — Government Official, 12:06

• Sumar’s Urtasun on "golpismo judicial":

  "Estamos ante puro golpismo judicial y ante los intentos por parte de la derecha política y mediática de tirar un gobierno legítimo porque no les gusta."
  — Minister Urtasun, 13:43

Important Segments (Timestamps)

• Verdict Announcement and Critique: 00:11–02:37
• Origin and Deconstruction of Falsehood: 02:41–04:44
• Legal Summary and Consequences: 05:13–06:46
• Political and Official Reactions: 06:46–13:23
  • Government: 07:11–09:04
  • PSOE interview: 09:04–10:41
  • PP and Ayuso reactions: 10:41–13:23
• Societal and Historical Context: 13:23–14:54

Conclusion

This episode critically dissects the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to condemn Spain’s top legal authority without concrete evidence, underscoring its chilling implications for both the justice system and press freedom. Through analysis, direct testimony, and political reaction, the program spotlights a pivotal moment for Spain’s institutions, questioning whether democracy and truth can withstand the normalization of misinformation and judicial politicization.