Well, the President does have the right to dissolve parliament, in Peru, after 2 attempts to depose him through votes of no confidence. Castillo did just that just before the third attempt. The opposition (and some in his own party) said that was unconstitutional, as they were just attempts, which is a matter of interpretation and can go both ways, yes. Not that it matters as much, as legal interpretation is a question of power in the end, and it was use of power to change the government, orchestrated by the US as a rection to Castillo diverging from the vassal path in his policies. Which happened against wide public condemnation and uprisings, and the coup government is still one of the most detested in the world, so popular will it was not.

And yes, the contract was made before, but it was part of the coup plan to get in a new, pro-US government that would stop and stall the non-empire friendly policies. Whichis how this works, same in Pakistan, the BRI contracts were already in place, and here, too, the plan was that a new government would stall and reverse (much like, again, in Argentina with the swap programs). These coups are always means to stop a moving train, that's how they come up int he first place, as they're also a bit of a desperation play on the side of the empire.

Be that as it may, my point, in the end, was another one: that in spite of installing pro-empire leaders, the countries don't crawl back under the canopy of empire, because material, financial reality makes it suicidal to do so.

Something germany hasn't learnt yet, by the way, it's in too deep (or up to deep, depending)