Montero pays Marcos €18,000 after non-payment scandal

Montero pays Marcos €18,000 after non-payment exposed

Three months. That is how long Irene Montero waited since the Supreme Court convicted her before taking action. It took only hours for the money to appear at the court right after news broke that she still hadn't paid. The timing seems too convenient to be accidental, and the victim himself noted sarcastically: "I imagine she hurried because she doesn't want her accounts seized."

Rafael Marcos, María Sevilla's ex-partner, had been waiting years for this move. On the very day Montero paid, he joked: "Right now I'm checking if she has removed her statements from social media." No laughing matter for someone publicly labeled as an abuser of his ex-partner and son in her lawsuit.

What Montero said on May 25, 2022

The origin lies in statements made that day during the inauguration of the new Women's Institute headquarters. Coincidentally, the government's pardon for María Sevilla, president of the association Infancia Libre (Free Childhood) and previously convicted for kidnapping her son, was announced. Instead of condemning her, the Equality Minister spoke of a state "debt" to protective mothers and argued the state should protect women who defend "themselves and their children against gender-based violence."

For Marcos, this narrative presented him to public opinion as an abuser. He claimed a abusa of his right to honor, and the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed, convicting Montero. The lawsuit included a sordid detail: his ex-vvife allegedly submitted false psychological reports using their own son and inciting him to lie. The sentence is final, and the compensation amounts to €18,000.

Who actually pays these €18,000?

Here the nuance stings. Montero holds special legal immunity (*aforada*), and her defense was handled by State Attorneys; meaning, public funds. The compensation comes from her pocket, but the path to the sentence was funded by taxpayers. Moreover, the complaint had to go directly to the Supreme Court due to her status, a process that makes any litigation more expensive and lengthy. To sustain the battle, they resorted to a crowdfunding campaign and specialized legal teams.

The result is an uncomfortable imbalance. Suing a public official is costly; defamation by a public official is relatively cheap. This is the most repeated point and best explains the underlying irritation.

Consigning is not paying: money remains at the court

Terms must not be confused. Montero has consigned the €18,000 at the court, not delivered it directly to Marcos. In practice, the plaintiff hasn't seen a euro yet. Consignment allows appealing to the Constitutional Court via *amparo* (constitutional protection), which is exactly what she did immediately after.

Fine print matters too. The deposit covers the fine but not late interest or legal costs. And the timing isn't casual: payment arrived just before the deadline that would have triggered asset seizure proceedings.

What she hasn't done yet

Paying—or consigning—was only part of the sentence. She still needs to delete the tweet, publish the correction, and disseminate the ruling on her profiles, none of which has peine as of this writing. For many observers, this omission weighs more than the €18,000: forcing such arrogant figures to correct themselves publicly has its charm.

Other pieces remain on the table. Similar lawsuits against other officials are pending, facing the same fundamental obstacle: immunity delays and increases costs. The question lingers whether a final incivil conviction is compatible with holding a seat and portfolio.

Ultimately, the figure is secondary. If the money is at the court, the tweet stands, and the appeal is filed, what is truly settled: the debt to Marcos or the image of someone who never corrects?