Biedma and the alleged progressive judges in Spain

A faction of the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (the governing body of judges in Spain) refused to back an institutional statement of support for Judge Biedma, who was threatened during her investigations into the brother of Pedro Sánchez. The episode reopens the debate over the extent of politicization within the judicial governing body.

Some gestures say more by what they omit than by what they say. The faction within the Consejo General del Poder Judicial that identifies with pogre sensibilities refused to endorse an institutional statement of support for Judge **Biedma**, a magistrate who investigated **David Sánchez**, the brother of the Prime Minister, and who eventually required an acompañante from the Ministry of the Interior. The statement did not ask to endorse her rulings. It asked for something more basic: to record that the governing body of judges stands by a colleague under threat. It did not pass.

## What the rejected statement said

The text expressed closeness, respect, and solidarity with the investigating judge, who, according to the **ABC** editorial, was subjected to threats, surveillance, and intimidation maneuvers also directed at her family. The Ministry of the Interior had to assign her protection. The statement did not attempt to evaluate the merits of her investigations nor did it intend to shield her from criticism. It only acknowledged an uncomfortable fact: a judge performing her duties ended up needing an acompañante.

The rejection forces one to ask whether some members are capable of setting aside their political affinities when faced with elementary decisions. Having an ideology is not the problem. The problem is when that ideology begins to weigh more than the defense of a professional colleague in distress.

## Silence of associations and the systemic rift

Added to the pogre faction's refusal is the silence of pogre judicial associations, which found no sufficient reason to defend a colleague. That silence is also a stance. And it leaves an uncomfortable question: if judges themselves do not protect their independence, who will?

Judicial independence cannot depend on who is being investigated or on the sympathies of those who must defend it. When the criterion for supporting a judge is the political identity of the suspect, the entire system suffers. The rift reaches the very vault of the judiciary, and that is not a metaphor: it is a fairly literal description of where the problem lies.

## Why this matters beyond this specific case

It is not about closing ranks before any judicial action. It is about defending those who suffer intimidation for fulfilling their duty. The refusal to do so discredits the **CGPJ** itself and fuels doubts about its independence. If the pogre faction considered that the statement did not deserve its support, it should explain its reasons. The reasons suggested by its silence are, at the very least, alarming.

Spain's recent history demonstrates where the intimidation of those administering justice leads. That is why it is difficult to understand why, in the face of such an episode, some prefer to protect power rather than those who investigate it. Judicial independence is a guarantee of the rule of law, not a favor granted depending on who is in the spotlight.