only requires simple majority for any decision. Relationship with the Supreme Court The relationship between the Constitutional Court of Korea and the Supreme Court of Korea is a hotly debated topic among Korean jurists. The Constitution does not establish a clear hierarchy between the two highest courts, and the ranks of the respective chief justices are equal under the Constitutional Court Act. Since the coequal relationship of the courts relies on a piece of legislation, the National Assembly could pass an amendment and rank the heads of the courts differently, which would resolve this issue. However, as it stands, there is no remedy if the two highest courts disagree on a constitutional case. There are several areas where the two highest courts have come into conflict. Most notably, jurisdiction over executive orders, which include presidential decrees and ordinances, can fall on either court depending on the interpretation. Article 107(2) of the Constitution states the Supreme Court shall preside over and have the final say in cases concerning the legality of executive orders. However, the Constitutional Court has held that a litigant may file a complaint directly with the Constitutional Court if the litigant believes his or her constitutional rights were infringed upon by an executive order. The Constitution also grants the Constitutional Court jurisdiction over complaints of constitutional violations as prescribed by an act of the National Assembly. In addition, the Constitutional Court Act gives the Constitutional Court the authority to review the constitutionality of all government actions. Since the Constitution itself empowers both courts to hear the same cases, this puts the two courts into endless strife. The highest courts also fiercely disagree over the Constitutional Court's power to declare a law unconstitutional as applied (), which means the statute itself is constitutional but as it is applied by either the executive branch or inferior courts does run afoul of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Korea does not recognize the binding power of such "unconstitutional as applied" decisions by the Constitutional Court, as the Supreme Court interprets such decisions as essentially upholding the statutes in dispute. This indicates that the Supreme Court may ignore such decisions and proceed as it sees fit, which has happened several times. The Constitutional Court may counter this by suspending state powers that may violate the Constitution, which the Constitutional Court interprets to include the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case. The