The dramatic reappearance of Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. at the La Salle Greenhills school early Wednesday morning, surrounded by a phalanx of nuns, did not only stir many from their sleep, it also awakened the ghost of ZTE past.

Malacañang immediately denounced the monster it saw in its mirror, the ghost of personal agenda. Various Palace spokespersons called the Senate witness on the ZTE scandal a liar, and his emotional press conference a tissue of convenient lies.

Does anyone in Malacañang actually think there was anything convenient in the course Lozada chose? It would have been convenient for Lozada to disown the first affidavit he had signed and then keep a studied silence about the government deal with China’s ZTE Corp. to build a national broadband network. That he obviously agonized over coming out in the open (even to the point of courting a contempt citation from the Senate), that he obviously took elaborate measures to ensure that his meeting with the media would be held in relative safety (with the help of the Catholic Church), that he obviously thought getting out his message to the media at the earliest possible time was a form of protection he could not avoid (hence the 2:30 a.m. news briefing) -- all these suggest that Lozada in fact chose the more difficult course, the option of maximum inconvenience.

What does a man like Lozada, who is not independently wealthy, who holds no political power, stand to gain from taking on Malacañang?

Make no mistake: While Lozada has been careful to limit his statements to the corrupt brokering of Benjamin Abalos, the former chair of the Commission on Elections, and the possible involvement in the ZTE controversy of Jose Miguel Arroyo, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s husband, Malacañang has responded as though the President’s very survival is at stake.

Hence, the many attempts at intimidation, including the surprising motion to cite Lozada for contempt filed by administration ally Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile. Hence, the many attempts at coercion, including the use of armed men to illegally escort him directly off the plane and out of the airport. Hence, the many attempts at manipulation, including the offer and the opportunity to sign a second affidavit while he was under police custody.

It is striking that Lozada took pains to give a nuanced explanation for signing that second affidavit. Asked whether he signed it under duress, he said the word was inaccurate. While it was clear from his narration of events that he signed the second affidavit against his best interests, he pointed out that it was his decision to sign it. Why? Perhaps to buy time, perhaps to buy the trust of his custodians; we don’t know. Saying he never wanted to sign it, he then asked the public to forgive him for this lapse in judgment.

This is not the behavior of a liar or of someone driven by a political agenda. Lozada could have easily said he had signed the second affidavit against his will. That he did not choose the path of least resistance tells us he is, in the main, telling the country the truth.

In contrast, we have heard nothing from the administration except transparent attempts at being economical with the truth. Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Lito Atienza, Lozada’s erstwhile boss, maintained that Lozada had gone through the immigration and customs counters upon arrival from Hong Kong. But Lozada said he was met right at the tube -- that is, immediately upon deplaning. Philippine National Police Director General Avelino Razon alleged that Lozada was brought immediately to La Salle Greenhills. But Lozada said he was in fact taken for a long ride to Laguna province, before media interest and public curiosity forced his custodians to return to Metro Manila. Deputy Presidential Spokesman Anthony Golez scored the inconsistency in Lozada’s explanation of the second affidavit. Because of this lie, he said, “We don’t know what more lies he can tell.” But that’s like saying we can no longer believe President Arroyo’s promises, because she infamously broke her Rizal Day 2002 promise not to run for president.

Like other good men sucked into the vortex of Malacañang’s systematic lying, Golez is narrowly focused on what he thinks is incriminating detail. But the real question is: On the big issues, is Lozada in fact telling the truth?

Malacañang’s full-court press gives the game away.