Are either of the two truths Truths (Satya)? Is it reasonable to call these truths, or would it be more reasonable to call them accurate statements from two different frames of reference?

The truth, from the frame of reference of conditioned experience, is emptiness.

The truth, from the frame of reference of the unconditioned, is neither the condition of emptiness, nor the condition of non-emptiness, neither both nor neither.

.. In that a statement with regards to the ultimate is false from a conditioned frame, and a statement with regards to the conditioned is false from the ultimate frame, how can either one declare any 'satya'?
Prasangika-Madhyamika define a truth as whatever is not deceptive in that it appears the way it exists. The opposite of a truth is a falsity.

Ngawang Palden says:


  Ultimate truths necessarily are established in accordance with how
  they appear to the awarenesses to which they clearly appear.
  
  Conventional truths are necessarily falsities. The meaning of falsity
  is “deceptive,” and the meaning of deceptive is “discordance between
  the mode of appearance and the mode of abiding.”


Ultimate truths are truths because, in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing them, they appear the way they exist (i.e. empty). On the other hand, conventional truths are falsities and not truths because they appear as inherently existent while they do not exist in this way. Thus, conventional truths are truths only in relation to ignorance. This is because ignorance conceive of them to exist the way they appear.

In Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom by Jeffrey Hopkins, it says:


  In saṃvṛtisatya, saṃvṛti means that which obscures, or conceals,
  reality, and thus saṃvṛtisatya means "that which is a truth for
  ignorance".