Plaintiffs initiated this declaratory judgment proceeding seeking a declaration that the statewide land use planning program violates the state and federal constitutions. 1 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that both the state statutes creating that program, ORS ch 197, and the statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to those statutes are unconstitutional.

Defendants challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction, contending the statewide planning goals are "rules” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act and therefore that exclusive jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to the goals was in the Court of Appeals pursuant to ORS 183.400. The trial court agreed with defendants and entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiffs appeal.

ORS 28.020, one of the statutes defining declaratory judgment jurisdiction, provides in part:

"Any person * * * whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a * * * statute * * * may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such * * * statute * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.”

We need not and do not reach the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ challenge to the statewide planning goals, because under ORS 28.020 the trial court obviously had jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ challenge to the statutes.

Reversed and remanded.