MIRASOL VS CA FACTS: The Mirasols are sugarland owners and planters.

PNB financed the business under a Crop Loan Financing Scheme. The Mirasols signed credit arrangements, chattel and real estate mortgage in favor of PNB. The chattel mortgage empowered PNB to sell the sugar produced to apply the proceeds to the payment of their obligations. President Marcos then issued PD 579 authorizing PHILEX to purchase sugar for export and authorized PNB to finance the purchases. The decree directed that whatever profit PHILEX might receive must be remitted to the government. Believing that the proceed were more than enough to pay the obligations, Mirasols asked PNB for an accounting of the proceeds which the latter ignored. Petitioners likewise continued to avail the other loans from PNB. The bank asked the petitioners to setttle their due and demandable accounts. Petitioners conveyed to PNB real properties by way of Dacion en pago still leaving an unpaid amount. PNB thereafter proceeded to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged properties. Petitioners continued to ask PNB to account for the proceeds, insisting that it could offset their outstanding obligations. PNB remained uncertain in its stance under PD No. 579. There was nothing to account since under the said law, all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the National government. Mirasol filed a suit for accounting, specific performance, and damages against PNB. ISSUE: Whether or not PD 579 and subsequent issuances thereof are unconstitutional and is subject to judicial review HELD: The Miraols contend that PD 579 and its implementing issuances are void for violating the due process clause and the prohibition against the taking of private property without just compensation. Jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites for the exercise of this power: First, there must be before the Court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review. Second, the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication. Third, the person challenging the validityf the act must have standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity, and lastly, the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.