These were all actions that would limit the power of Pinochet's junta, albeit gradually.
The military filled the executive branch's absence with a junta consisting of the commanders of each branch and ruled until the Allendist militias were put down in 1974. Pinochet transferred its power into a restored executive branch in December 1974, taking the office of President.
All done in violation of the constitution.
A functioning constitution in Chile ceased in early 1973 when Allende declared himself able to unilaterally overrule the other 2 branches. So none. Remnants of the 1925 Constitution were still functioning in the Chamber of Deputies, which called for Allende's ouster on August 22nd for his previous violations and refusal to restore the parts he had suspended. Allende's suicide left the military in charge of a dysfunctional government that had no executive branch (all of the cabinet ministers either fled or were arrested as Allendist criminals in their own right) and a power-striken judiciary. The only semi-functioning remnant, the legislature, was controlled by a CDP plurality, that along with the conservatives gave its support to the coup.
It sounds like you're claiming that the situation justified the coup. Such a claim is in direct violation of article 4 of the constitution: "Ninguna majistratura, ninguna persona, ni reunion de personas pueden atribuirse, ni aún a pretesto de circunstancias estraordinarias, otra autoridad o derechos que los que expresamente se les hayan conferido por les leyes. Todo acto en contravenvion a este artículo es nulo."
Pinochet's office as commander of the armed forces placed him well within the line of presidential succession under Allende.
Oh, okay. Just tell me which article of the constitution placed him well within that line of presidential succession. Because I didn't see any mention of the commander of the armed forces in article 66.
Not if Frei endorsed Pinochet and threw his own support behind the military.
No, you're still confusing "support" with "legitimacy" and "Frei" with "the constitution". It was not in Frei's power to abdicate responsibility in favor of a chosen successor. Pinochet violated articles 3 and 4 of the constitution.
So what's your point? Pinochet himself voluntarily ceded his own power.
All done in violation of the constitution.
That presumes the constitution was operational at the time. Thanks to Allende, it wasn't.
It sounds like you're claiming that the situation justified the coup.
I'm saying that it justified Allende's arrest. The fact that he decided to off himself in the middle of it was beyond Pinochet's control.
Such a claim is in direct violation of article 4 of the constitution
Actually that would've been Allende in violation. The constitution did not bar anyone from arresting criminals.
Yet it was in his power to to refuse office and yield to another successor. Frei described the military's action as meeting its "legal obligation," consistent with the directions of the legislative and judicial branches. Seeing as his expertise on Chilean constitutional law far exceeded anything you could ever hope to glean from your frantic search engine-style "research" into a historical event with which you are painfully unfamiliar, I'll gladly yield to his judgement in that matter.