MANILA (UPDATE) - At least two senators on Thursday called on the Supreme Court to intervene in the apparent standoff between Malacañang and the Ombudsman, after an official of the anti-graft body was suspended.

The High Court must rule as the final arbiter after Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales refused to implement the Palace's suspension of her deputy, Melchor Arthur Carandang.

Morales said the Palace's move breached her office's independence.

"The Supreme Court should immediately intervene. Otherwise, there could a constitutional crisis as there is a conflict and a clash between two independent constitutional offices -- the President and the Ombudsman," Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said.

Morales said Malacañang's actions were a "clear affront" to the Supreme Court which, in 2014, declared unconstitutional a provision in the Ombudsman Act of 1989 granting the Office of the President the power to remove a deputy ombudsman.

• Ombudsman defies Palace, won't enforce Carandang suspension

An administrative complaint has been filed by the Palace against Carandang for grave misconduct and grave dishonesty for his supposed illegal disclosure of the President Rodrigo Dutertes' bank accounts.

• Palace files admin raps vs deputy ombudsman

Solicitor General Jose Calida said the President was within his authority to discipline a deputy ombudsman, adding he was ready to defend the Palace's position before the High Court.

• SolGen ready to defend Palace's suspension of Carandang

To resolve the dispute, Drilon said Malacañang could file a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel Morales to implement the suspension while Carandang on the other hand, could file a petition seeking a temporary restraining order.

"Which interpretation is correct cannot be left to the President or the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court must rule as the final arbiter," Drilon said.

• Only Supreme Court can stop Carandang suspension: Roque

Sen. Francis Escudero agreed and said it is the "best course of action."

“This is the legal, peaceful and best course of action on the part of either or both the government and the Ombudsman instead of sending the police to serve and effect the suspension order given the Ombudsman’s divergent interpretation of the law from that of government," Escudero said in a statement.

“The SC, as the final arbiter of all questions of law, has the power to decide between the competing interests or interpretations of the government and an independent constitutional body."