Justice has imposed the same penalty on two convicted individuals for crimes so different they expose an abyss in judicial treatment: nine years disqualification both for whoever placed 104 people in a public institution and for whoever cooperated in changing the name of a plaza. The comparison exposes inconsistencies in administrative corruption sentences.

Two cases, one identical sentence

José Luis Baltar, former president of the Ourense Provincial Council for the PP between 1990 and 2012, was convicted of placing 104 people close to party officials in public positions at the institution. David Sánchez, brother of the Government president, received an identical penalty for cooperating in a misconduct case consisting of changing the name of his workplace plaza. According to eldiario.es, the difference between both behaviours is so substantial it questions the proportionality of judicial decisions.

In Baltar's case, the sentence confirmed solid evidence of massive abuse of influence. The Provincial Court of Badajoz, in contrast, has noted that it has no proof whatsoever that David Sánchez committed abuse of influence to access his position, despite acknowledging that the plaza had been created specifically for him.

Cronyism that erodes public trust

The sentence against David Sánchez admits an uncomfortable fact: the crime of abuse of influence would have been barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the conviction rests solely on his cooperation in the administrative procedures for changing his plaza's name, a change that did not even result in a salary increase.

The Badajoz court was categorical in its diagnosis: "Cronyism is a scourge for public administration" and generates public perception that access to certain positions does not occur on equal terms, eroding trust in institutions. However, this declaration of principles did not translate into a sentence proportional to the magnitude of the attributed crime.

A pattern of impunity in Ourense

Baltar's actions were more evident. The 104 hired individuals were acquitted in sentence—none was convicted—although they accepted jobs knowing they received favourable treatment. Observers of the phenomenon, such as the authors of the book Os Baltar. A senda do caciquismo na democracia plena, put that number of placements at least in the thousands. Among the most striking cases was the hiring of 33 porters in 2009 for a cultural centre that only had two entrances.

The judge who convicted Baltar even wrote in her sentence: "It seems the Provincial Council was a private company". His son Manuel, named as Baltar's successor at the head of the Ourense PP, avoided being implicated in cronyism at that time. Years later he emerged unscathed from an accusation of offering work in exchange for sexual favours. Only a speeding conviction—caught on radar at 215 kilometres per hour—forced him to resign from the Provincial Council, though he managed to become a senator through regional appointment. He remains in office today.

What happens now?

David Sánchez has ten days to file an appeal which, according to eldiario.es, could dismantle the misconduct accusation. Both sentences now stand as testimony to how Spanish justice has punished with identical severity profoundly unequal conduct: the systemic cronyism of a former provincial president and administrative cooperation in changing a job title.

The uncomfortable question remains unanswered: how can it be justified that both crimes deserve the same penalty?