As for Java, how would you have such a property behave? There are already techniques for making objects immutable, which is arguably a better way to achieve this with additional benefits. In fact you can emulate const behaviour by declaring a superclass/superinterface that implements only the methods that don't change state, and then having a subclass/subinterface that implements the mutating methods. By upcasting your mutable class to an instance of class with no write methods, other bits of code cannot modify the object without specifically casting it back to the mutable version (which is equivalent to casting away const).
Even if you don't want the object to be strictly immutable, if you really wanted (which I wouldn't recommend) you could put some kind of 'lock' mode on it so that it could only be mutated when unlocked. Have the lock/unlock methods be private, or protected as appropriate, and you get some level of access control there. Alternatively, if you don't intend for the method taking it as a parameter to modify it at all, pass in a copy of that object, or if copying the entire object is too heavyweight then some other lightweight data object that contains just the necessary information. You could even use dynamic proxies to create a proxy to your object that turn any calls to mutation methods into no-ops.
Basically there are already a whole bunch of ways to prevent a class being mutated, which let you choose one that fits most appropriately into your situation (hint: choose pure immutability wherever possible as it makes the object trivially threadsafe and easier to reason with in general). There are no obvious semantics for how const could be implemented that would be an improvement on these techniques, it would be another thing to learn that would either lack flexibility, or be so flexible as to be useless.
That is, unless I've missed something, which is entirely possible. :-)