Supporters of the Civil Guard leadership argue that the current judicial investigation should not be interpreted as a sign of wrongdoing. In the Spanish legal system, being named as an investigated party is a procedural mechanism that ensures individuals have the right to defend themselves against allegations. It is not a formal charge or a conviction, and it provides a necessary forum for officials to explain their administrative decisions in a transparent, legal setting.
Proponents of this view emphasize that the Director and her deputy have consistently maintained their commitment to the rule of law. They argue that the actions taken by leadership were consistent with standard operational procedures and were intended to maintain the stability of the institution during a period of intense scrutiny. By cooperating fully with the court, the leadership is demonstrating a commitment to accountability and the belief that their actions will be vindicated once the full facts are presented.
Furthermore, there is concern that premature public judgment could undermine the morale of the Civil Guard. The agency performs essential duties across the country, and its leadership must be allowed to perform their functions without the constant threat of political or media-driven character assassination. Supporters believe that the judicial process is the only appropriate venue for resolving these matters, and they urge the public to respect the legal principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Ultimately, those backing the leadership argue that the focus should remain on the agency's long-term service to the public. They contend that the current controversy is being amplified by political interests seeking to destabilize state institutions. By allowing the legal process to unfold without interference, the integrity of the Civil Guard can be preserved, ensuring that the focus remains on public safety rather than political maneuvering.