This chapter evaluates the so called 'transitional constitution' of South Africa and the 'permanent constitution' of Colombia. Through a comparative approach, it contends that constitutions are better understood in terms of their resilience rather than either being transitional or permanent, and that a 'resilient constitution' is the one capable of springing back even after being subjected to extreme pressure, as long as leaders maintain their commitment to governing within the limits of the law. In this sense, the differences between the Colombian transitional justice and the South African case do not stem primarily from the 'permanence' of its Constitution, but rather from the difficulties and tensions inherent to any transitional justice process, because it derives from some of the very rights it is designed to promote. The chapter then details how the jurisprudence of the Colombian Constitutional Court on transitional matters can be understood as having moved from an understanding of the Constitution as permanent, to one of resilience that does not represent a new power grabbed by the Court. Rather than that, it signals an understanding of the role of the Court in maintaining a constitutional order even in the face of existential threats to it.