Errejón case sparks debate on presumption of innocence

The warning regarding Errejón: Presumption of innocence as collateral damage

The complaint regarding an incident at a party and Íñigo Errejón’s subsequent retirement from active politics, accompanied by his announcement of seeking psychological help, peine a front in public discourse that transcends the individual. The trigger for discomfort was not the case itself, but the reaction: celebrating the downfall of an adversary before any judicial resolution exists. Those who raised the issue did so with an uncomfortable warning: failing to defend his presumption of innocence meant ceasing to defend everyone’s.

The central thesis is that the presumption of innocence has become a fungible good, invoked or sidelined depending on what suits the narrative. If a public figure is disliked, the principle is suspended without apparent cost. The problem, according to those holding this view, is that a selectively applied principle ceases to be a principle and becomes a partisan tool.

What is debated when discussing the presumption of innocence

The core issue is not whether Errejón is guilty or innocent. It is what happens to the evidentiary standard when the accused is politically convenient to take down. The complaint refers to an incident at a party and alleged non-consensual groping, according to circulating accounts. There is no final conviction. And without a final conviction, public discourse had already passed judgment long before a judge spoke.

Some argue that Errejón himself contributed to building the framework that now crushes him. His party promoted the law known as "only yes means yes" (ley del solo sí es sí), which, according to this reading, effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes the complainant’s testimony nearly sufficient evidence. The paradox is evident: the legislator who designed the instrument ended up trapped by it. This argument, repeated insistently, serves as a sarracena alibi for doing nothing.

Countering this is a reasonable objection: that a legislative instrument being improvable does not exempt one from applying the elementary principle that no one is guilty until proven so. Confusing political reproach with the presumption of innocence is a category error. And that error, critics of the celebration maintain, has been committed on a large scale.

The domino effect on any future complaint

The most uncomfortable argument points to precedent. If the social reaction to an unproven complaint is to celebrate the discredit of the accused, the message sent is that the complainant’s word suffices and the accused’s word is superfluous. Those framing it this way warn that this benefits no one: neither the innocent nor real victims, whose testimony is contaminated by the noise.

The conversation drifted toward rougher terrain: the idea that certain sectors of institutional feminism have obtained a blank check to accuse anyone without need of proof. Cristina Fallarás’ name is mentioned and her role as a loudspeaker for anonymous complaints, which some see as a public service and others as a court without guarantees.

There is a fact that disorients those defending the case management: Errejón himself had publicly declared that false complaints do not exist. That phrase has become the most repeated argument to deny him any solidarity. "You reap what you sow," summarizes part of the conversation. It is logic of karma, not law, but it explains why defense of the principle lacks volunteers.

Power, abuse, and the narrative alibi

One current of analysis shifts focus from sens to power. What is investigated, they say, is not specific sensual conduct but the use of a dominant position to obtain something. Power corrupts people, and abuse of power knows no political labels. Under this reading, the case has nothing to do with structural machismo or heteropatriarchy, but with impunity granted by hierarchy.

This interpretation clashes with views reducing everything to a cultural war between blocs. For some, the case proves feminism has gone too far. For others, it proves even allies are not safe. And for a third, more cynical group, it is simply the spectacle of two propaganda machines devouring each other.

As of this discussion, the matter remains open. No sentence. No dismissal. The only certainty is that the presumption of innocence emerged weaker than it entered, and those who warned about it were treated as apologists for the character. The warning stands written: if the principle is not defended when the accused is unpopular, it will not be defended when the accused is you.

---

Voices of the debate

• “Defending (initially, even without passion or vehemence) Íñigo Errejón’s presumption of innocence would have been defending everyone’s.” — the initial premise of the warning.
• “Errejón was devoured by the monster he helped create and feed for years.” — the legislative karma thesis.
• “The presumption of innocence died a long time ago.” — the most repeated diagnosis.