Oh, I agree that via the use of force he can do what he likes, at least so long as that force is loyal to him and other forces aren't stronger.

It's just harder to create a veneer of the constitutional necessity of such a move when your own highest profile political allies apparently condemn it and pledge to "stop it with the people" instead of queuing up to rubber stamp it and do "this is a small problem with criminal elements in one party which is all resolved now" briefings to confused foreigners wondering who the real government of South Korea is.

Edit: reportedly the National Assembly has actually managed to hold a vote against it. Not sure how or what the constitutional quirks are, but that's probably going to make it considerably less likely the military unites behind the President...

The standard constitutional remedy is to have martial law automatically expire after a few days (without being able to be imposed afterwards for a while, etc.) unless the parliament votes to confirm it. But apparently South Korea doesn’t have anything like that.

Does the legislature have to meet in that specific building for it to legally count as in session?

Or can they meet anywhere they choose?

I think the point is, the term “opposition” only really makes sense in a parliamentary system. In a Presidential system like the US, there officially speaking isn’t an “opposition”. (I don’t even think all parliamentary systems officially have an “opposition” status for the largest party/coalition outside government.) But journalists tend to impose the term on non-US presidential systems, when they wouldn’t do it to the US.

The point still stands, if you control the parliament, aren’t you the majority and the other side is the opposition? Or how is it defined who is the opposition?